It will be interesting to learn who 1. Sides with the private citizen 2. Sides with the police When you speak as to who you side with, please instruct us by explaining why? Thanks
I am simply relieved that nobody had a neurotic attack and started shooting a gun. Not sure whose side I'm on yet...
The law is the officer needs a warrant unless there is some type of immediate emergency situation (and the law probably can vary between different states, depending on what type of crime is suspected). Some states have passed laws about "obstructing an officer" that theoretically (if a literal interpretation were applied) take away the legal right to resist. Meaning there could theoretically be situations where you could shoot an individual claiming to be an officer, and it would be legal only if it turned out that individual was not a real officer, even though there might be no way for you to know at the time. Yes, the wording of that type of law could result in absurd situations like that. In other legal jurisdictions, it could theoretically be legal for two people to shoot each other, in some situations. This is one of the reasons law enforcement usually show up in a large group, when entering unexpectedly onto private property in rural areas. It both reduces the likelihood the property owner might think they are criminals, and intimidates the few people on the property into knowing that they wouldn't have much of a chance in any fight.
The laws themselves can often be vague in these type of situations and open to a lot of interpretation. Whether it is "legal" or not may depend on those who are actually interpreting the law... which will likely be other law enforcement officers arriving on the ground, the prosecutor, judge and jury. Knowing what "can" be done then, one cannot simply look to the law, but would have to anticipate the opinions of others on the issue, and what their interpretation of the law might be. Usually lots of slack is given to a law enforcement officer. While they might theoretically be in violation of the law and trespassing, in actual practice they will likely be seen as having the right to be there. If pressed, they could always lie and claim a somewhat plausible reason for going onto the property, and they are unlikely to face any discipline or punishment. Unless there have been repeated complaints from different people in multiple incidents and it has caused problems in the past.
It seems to me that a law enforcement officer should be able to go up to someone's house and knock on their front door. Now collecting "evidence" from going so close to the house, to be able to be justified in doing something else, might be a different story. Maybe there should be Fourth Amendment protections built into that. Half of the point of the Fourth Amendment isn't actually to prevent them from physically searching, but rather to require some separate additional legal hurdle protection, so it is not so easy to collect evidence on anyone they want when there was no good enough reason to in the first place. Because that can then lead to other things, and other intrusions of that individual's rights. But this type of thing can lead to absurd situations like, for example, an officer going up to someone's front door, despite a "No trespassing" sign, and then noticing a dead body under the front deck, but then not being able to do anything about it. Maybe certain types of more extreme suspected crimes like that should get more exemptions from Fourth Amendment protections.
I give the citizen an A+ This grade is mentioned in the video First off the Deputy was investigating a convict. There is no duty by the citizen to attend to the business of the convict who left his alleged car parked.
The cop could have knocked on the door. The party at the door has no duty to comply with the officer and may tell the officer to leave. This is why there are warrants approved by Judges.
I'm a fan of audit the audit and I tend to agree with him on his analysis. This cop was a doofus for not finding out about this guy before he went off.
I side with the citizen in this case. He had no obligation to answer any questions or cooperate in any way. The officer was trespassing the instant was asked to leave and refused, and perhaps the moment he opened the closed gate to come into the property.
They don't bother me since I seem to know the law better than they do and I know how to get them into trouble.
Well, that's a good question. I do believe law enforcement should be able to at least attempt to contact people, attempt to at least get the homeowner to confirm that they do not want to talk. If that is going to require a warrant to even go knock on their front door, so be it.
I side with the home owner/private citizen. Police do not have the right or the power to invade your property absent actual cause. Just as there is no duty for police to protect you, there is also no duty for your to aid or assist the police. The police would like for us to ignore those truths, but there ya go. Basically, police do not enjoy a privilege to trespass without court order, and never have the right to search or seize without demonstrating due process.. I may not like the attitude of either of these two, but the police officer/deputy is way out of bounds here.
In the case of this video right after this office around the plates and should have looked down a little further and seeing that the person was incarcerated. 100% of this issue was caused by this officer's ineptitude. There are points at which an officer can cut open a gate. But to ask questions is not one of them. If he had gone and got a warrant they would have probably let him know that the person he's investigating is already incarcerated.