Cops Illegally Enter Woman's Home and Arrest Her After She Told Them To Leave

Oh, mean talking behind a computer screen. Was her boyfriends stolen car seen outside her place a few days before he was arrested or not?? If so, they had the right to go there, if not, then we have a fish of a different color. They didn't need a warrant to go talk to her on a felony case!!!

 

they knew before going to the house they planned to enter it, so they should of had a search warrant imo

 

The officers made up an exception. They apparantly don't need a warrant if the person in the residence fails to identify themselves. I guess that may become the new norm in today's nazi empire.

 

Not true in this case they were after a suspect for a crime, asked lawfully the two women identify themselves that is not hard your real name and residence and DOB is often enough and would have the right to ASK the homeowner to search the property therefore not needing a warrant. If they didn't fail to disclose their identities and didn't resist arrest they would not have been in trouble. State laws usually apply here as far as I know all states have laws requiring basic disclosure of ones identity.

Here is what they should have done identified themselves respectful to the officers, tell them they will not allow a search without a warrant and again kept calm and odds are they would have been fine. I'm not fond of police either but they have the badge, a gun and authority of their office one cannot ignore that.

 

If a cop comes up to me and asks for my identification, I have every right to ask them on what grounds? If I've done nothing illegal or if I've committed no crimes, they have no right to my identification. Sure, they can ask for it, just as I can decline to offer it to them.

She was arrested because she provided false information, not because she didn't provide any information. What she should've done is told the officers that they weren't allowed into her office and refused to be search or identify themselves. They were only there on a follow up because the boyfriends car was found in their parking lot a week prior. They had no search warrant to come in, so the woman had every right to decline a search or provide information.

Only those who wish to submit to law will willingly provide their information. I, on the other hand, am on the side of the woman arrested. She had no legal means to be searched or provide information. In regards to the badge, that's what a camera is for. Allow me to enter exhibit A:

[video=youtube;l_3smCYAKuo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l_3smCYAKuo[/video]

 

What if the cops were called to that apartment because someone reported screaming and gun shots? Imagine that woman coming to the door and refusing to identify herself. Would any of you want the cops to just stand-down?

Another question, why would that woman NOT want to identify herself? Under the circumstances one would think that an innocent person would WANT to self-identify and cooperate with an investigation IF they were truly innocent.

 

More likely...she did not want her home torn apart and possibly drugs planted! Honestly...she's lucky she didn't die of a "self inflicted" gunshot wound or drown herself in a toilet "attempting to escape".

 

It's actually quite simple: it's none of their damned business!

 

This is something completely outside of the realm of this thread. However, I'll enlighten this question. If cops were called to that apartment, then the woman could simply say everything is fine, and no search is required. The cops have no legal means to enter the house, unless they are welcomed into the house and/or they obtain a search warrant.

Just because someone calls the cops doesn't automatically give them free reign to do as they please.

The woman had no legal obligation to identify herself. Her boyfriend was the criminal and the only prime suspect in the investigation. The cops were following up to increase the amount of evidence they had against the boyfriend. The woman refused to comply, as she had no legal means to do so, and she was locked up for it.

I think you're looking at this from a wrong way. Most folks comply with officers because they want no trouble. They know they did nothing wrong, so they're willing to comply. To others, who have no legal obligation to oblige or simply don't wish to identify themselves, have every right to do so. Just because someone doesn't want to identify themselves doesn't automatically make them guilty of something.

The video I posted, a post back from yours, shows a man being asked for identification when he broke no laws. However, the officer, who was asking for identification, pulled out his gun, from his holster, without being threatened. How many people do you think are killed because some reckless cop sees a gun, or something they believe to be a gun, and opens fire on them? Then, of course, folks will say he should've never had a gun, out in the open, in the first place. That's where I begin to question folks logic as you're saying the cop was right to shoot someone for doing nothing wrong. Where will that thought process end?

 

It's not hard to get down on your knees and submit. As for being in trouble for resisting, they had every right to resist and it was no crime to do so.

As for your knowledge of state laws, only half of the states have stop and identify statutes. In this case, it's Texas, and the law requires that the officer have good cause to believe that the person being detained is a witness to a criminal offense.

What she should have done is asked "Am I being detained?" If the answer is "Yes", then the answer is "With what am I being charged?" If the answer is no to either the first or second question, she has every right to ask him to leave and to close the door.

So it's her fault for not acting like an obedient slave, not the officer's fault for treating her like a disobedient one.

 

The law in Texas is quite clear in that matter. If they believe that she is a witness to a crime, then they can require her to identify herself.

Because some people aren't obedient slaves who submit to whoever claims authority over them. Some people actually have dignity which may not be a right in your mind, but is a basic human right to many.

 

Well a search warrant is only needed in cases where there is no probable cause. The deputies will most likely say that they had reason to believe a crime was being committed, and the judge will most likely agree.

 

I totally support it. The officer was doing a routine followup, from my understanding. If you have other evidence, provide it.

Otherwise, everything was by the book. The officer asked her to identify herself. When an officer asks you to ID yourself, you are required by law to do it. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. I would have done so immediately. She refused. From that moment on, EVERYTHING, is on her. The only entered the house, and arrested her, when she refused to ID herself.

Everything was by the book, and absolutely lawful. She was a criminal, just like her dumb boy friend.

One less scum bag on the street in my book.

 

Sounds like just another excuse to be a law breaker. All civil societies have laws. All civil societies have enforcers of those laws. You want to live in a place where you don't have to be an obedient slave and submit to authority over them, then go live on a deserted island, or go to jungles of Africa, or go to the wasteland of the Siberian forests.

There you don't have answer to anyone, of course you might get shot and robbed, or even taken captive by someone with guns, but no police will ever claim authority over you.

See, the problem with you people is, you want to safety and protection of the law.... but you don't want to have to submit to law yourself. Well too bad. Wah wah wah, time to grow up.

You only get the protection of the law, when you follow the law. If that lady had simply shut her mouth, and given her ID to the officer, none of this would have happened, because the law protects those who follow the law. Instead, she resisted the officer, refused to give her ID, and thus the officers rightly, and correctly entered the house and arrested her, as they should have, and as she deserved.

 

I submit to any law which seeks to protect or punish for force or fraud. The problem with "you people" is that you believe that anything put down on paper by a legislator, or decreed by a bureaucrat, is good and must be followed. Might is right, in your mind.

 

The officer can follow up, absolutely. However, there is no law that says the woman, or anyone for that matter, has to identify themselves. If you wish to identify yourself, you're more than welcome to succumb yourself to the police state rules, be my guest. However, this woman, and anyone like her who wishes to do the same thing, are completely within their legal right to not to identify themselves.

No law written by any lawyer, politician, judge, or anyone of the sort can deny the rights given to us under the 4th & 5th amendment's of the Constitution. They work together as the 4th protects US citizens from 'unreasonable searches & seizures'. In this case, by giving identification is unreasonable & it is searching the woman. How so? The boyfriend was the criminal, not her. If you're related to a king pin drug lord, does that mean the cops have a right to force you to identify yourself? Absolutely not because you've committed no crime.

How this plays into the 5th amendment is you're legally allowed to not be a 'witness against himself'. Meaning, if the woman gave the identification to the officer, without any reason to do so (Following up isn't a valid reason, as the cop didn't have a search warrant, nor did the woman commit a crime), then she could incriminate herself, thus will be a witness against herself. So, 2 amendments protect her in this regard. The Constitution, in every US citizen, is the highest law above anything else.

Obama has given him & his administration authority to drone US citizens. Does that mean no US citizen is allowed to enact their 5th amendment right? What law can take away that right? No law, that's which law. As I said in the statement you quoted me in, I'm surprised someone supports this...then again, I'm really not.

 

It's funny that you excuse folks of wanting 'safety and protection of the law'. In yet, you're the one who is in all favor of some law that is supposed to be greater than the US constitution. You willingly submit to authority figures, whenever posed with force. In yet, other folks want safety & protection of the law?

Yeah, your alias is befitting you, 'An Delusion'.

 

That law has been on the books for ages, it is Nothing New. If a police officer asks to see your i=dnetification, give it to them, otherwise they will have to detain you to find out your who you are which is a waste of your time, their time and tax payer dollars, that is unless you have something to hide.

 

Why does everyone always think someone has something to hide? Why can't it just be simple civil disobedience? It's an illegal law, it should never be able to be enforced, and this is the American citizens way of putting the pressure back onto them. Why is that whenever a politician or someone enacts a law, it's just that? It's law and the American citizens must obey the law.

Civil disobedience is when I will refuse to give the officer my identification, if I've committed no crime. Then, if the officer wishes to detain me, I'll ask him if I'm being detained. If they can't answer me, then it's also not legal for them to detain me either. It's the technicality of it all. It goes against everything this country was founded on, and it should be protested against.

If you and 'An Delusion' wish to be obedient lap dogs, be my guest.

 

Fine, it is your right to disobey and when they detain you you can take it to the SC and attempt to fight it, that is your choice, I on the othe rhand will simply show them my DL and be on my merry way.
Not directed to you but to some here, I find it interesting that some of the same people say you should be required to show an ID to vote but are against showing a police officer you ID when requested, very strange.

 

Which is exactly what the issue is. As you, and whomever else, continue to just hand the police your ID, you continue to allow them to enforce any ridiculous law they wish. Then, it becomes frowned upon, and abnormal, when someone refuses to give a cop their ID, whereas it should be vice versa. Thus, those who enact civil disobedience are the ones being shot/killed and locked up. No one talks about that but simply 'Should've just given the cop your ID, never would've happened'. That's the logic that I'm trying to break people away from.

I know it wasn't directed towards me but I say it's a ridiculous concept, ID, in either scenario. Votes don't matter anyway, regardless to whose running. I mean, someone stated at a Congressional hearing that the electronic voting system source code has been tailored to allow them to elect whomever they want to. Impossible to deny/approve as the source code has never been released for review. Thus, folks have to assume everything is good.

I have the video, if you'd like to see it.

 

There are good reasons for law enforcement having the right to ask you for an ID, all of related to doing their job and hence protecting you and your right to be as free from crime as possible. But you are free to fight the law and get it taken off the books.

 

Of course there is! What are you smoking?! Stop and Identify statues have been in place, in nearly every single state in the Union, since 1968 Terry Vs Ohio, which ruled that an individual must identify themselves to police upon request. Now, you don't have to answer any other questions, if you wish to refuse, that's true. But you MUST identify yourself, and if you don't, you go jail.

Now you might disagree with the law, but it is in fact the law, and has been for DECADES.

Too bad. Apparently merely asking a person to identify themselves is not considered illegal search and seizure. I'm not how you could claim otherwise.

Huge difference. Merely asking someone to identify themselves, in no way compares to having a military use vehicle spying on domestic citizens. Apples and oranges. The police merely asked her who she was. That is not search and seizure. Good grief you people are fruity.

 

Yes, absolutely. I love this name. I find it ironically hilliarious. I'm glad you did too. Back to the topic.

Yes of course. You submit to the law, to gain the protection of the law. You can't have protection of the law, while thwarting it. That's how that works.

If the officers of the law, break the law, the solution is to submit to the law yourself, and then challenge the violations of the law in court.

You will rarely if ever gain protection, by breaking the law yourself, and then claim " well they broke the law first!!!" That's what children do in pre-school. Hopefully most of us have grown up, and understand that if you want to nail a police officer to the wall for breaking the law, the way to do that isn't to violate it yourself, and start screaming like a 10-year-old "He hit me back first!".

It's called "Maturity". Something we are desperately lacking in modern America.

 

Just like I said. They want the protection of the law (police stopping criminals), but don't want to have to follow the laws themselves (asking them for their ID too). It's like we're all still in Kindergarten, and want everyone else caught doing wrong, but excuses for ourselves. People need to grow up.