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

I respectfully disagree here, gretaly depends on the facts and exigency, etc. MOST of the time they need a warrant to conduct and intrusive search.

 

Funny you mention July 2, that is when a vote to declare Independence was actually approved.

Any law cited, as I did above, would have to be AFTER the 4th AM was made applicable to the states in 1949 in conjunction with the Exclusionay rule in 1961.

 

had they got a warrant, wouldn't that make everything easier on them? just get the warrant, simple


.

 

Well, yes of course it depends on the facts. The police have to reasonably believe that a location was involved in a crime.

The mere mention of a location is not enough.

And also, I concede that most of the time, the cops would get a warrant based on said information before going.

But they aren't required to.


But let's forget the legalities for a moment anyway. The question remains. Why does a person have to be a dick to the police and then scream about their rights?

Protecting your rights is one thing, being a dick is another. There is no reason not to give the police your name in a situation where they knock on your door. Other than just being a dick of course.

 

And your going to tell me that if an officer comes to your door and asks for ID you don't have to provide it??? Think again. My wife does not drive, she has no drivers license, her state ID has expired but she would still do everything in her power to identify herself if an office asked.

 

That's exactly what I am saying.

 

WRONG

IF a LEO shows up at your door in the course of his legal duty, your ARE obligated to identify yourself. PERIOD. In EVERY jurisdiction in America.

 

So in your world I could get pulled over and not have to give them any of my identification; after all I didnt do anything wrong. Must be nice living in fantasy land. If she had identified herself and talked to the police then I would agree that they had no right to enter without a warrant. But you still have to identify yourself and talk to the police regardless of what you have/have not done. You might not have to admit to anything, you might not have to let them come into your home, but you do need to identify yourself and go from there.

 

Wrong again, as I said before where is your CASE law.

 

Being stopped in a car is TOTALLY and legally different. You will find any state has a law that says if a person is stopped while driving, they must show a DL if requested.

Again, where is the CASE law to support that about ID'ing yourself.

 

No you are wrong. IF a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that you may have been involved in a crime, you ARE required to identify yourself if asked to.

In this case, a person who was arrested gave the police ample evidence to suggest a crime had been committed at this woman's house. ANY reasonable person would assume that the owner of the house would be aware of if not involved in any criminal activity taking place in their home. Giving the police officer reasonable cause to ask her to identify herself.

Now, I question whether the police officer showed up without a warrant. I don't believe that, I think they DID have a warrant. In which case, I can tell you from experience that LEOs have EVERY right to identify anyone who is in a home where a warrant is being served.

To recap

A cop can't just knock on your door and ask who you are out of the blue

But

If a cop is making an official visit to your home , he has a reason for doing so and you are legally obligated to identify yourself when asked.

 

In another thread you said you have to ID yourself to police at ANY request, now it is RS? Make up your mind!

Why not, what right of yours does it violate? Ever hear of a "knock and talk"??

Again, your CASE law? You do not have any? Your words lie flat on a page.

In one thread I saw you were talking about serving no knock warrants? Are you trying to tell me you are or were once a police officer??

 

In the other thread, I ASSUMED we were talking about "official" police visits, in which case yes you ALWAYS must identify yourself.

You're correct. I misspoke, obviously they CAN knock on your door out of the blue for no reason, what they can NOT do is demand that you identify yourself or answer any questions without a valid reason.

I'm a retired MP, 22 years. The last 10 years of my career I worked on a joint drug task force serving no knock warrants, and I'm married to an ADA.

 

There's no difference. If a cop stops me in my car then he has a reason and I should ID myself. If a cop comes to knock on my door then it is for a reason and I need to ID myself. There is no difference. A cop isnt coming over to your house for tea and gossip (in which case you wouldnt have to ID yourself anyways)

 

You have presented NO case law to support your position. It is settled law that a TERRY STOP can NOT be effected in a home, (internal citations), so a request by an officer for ID can be ignored.


In Orhorhaghe, we identified five factors that aid in determining whether a reasonable person approached by police officers at his residence would have believed that he was “at liberty to ignore the police presence and to go about his business.”  38 F.3d at 494 (quoting Florida v. Bostick 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991)).   These factors are:  (1) the number of officers involved;  (2) whether the officers' weapons were displayed;  (3) whether the encounter occurred in a public or non-public setting;  (4) whether the officers' officious or authoritative manner would imply that compliance would be compelled;  and (5) whether the officers advised the detainee of his right to terminate the encounter.  Washington, 387 F.3d at 1068 (citing Orhorhaghe, 38 F.3d at 494-96).

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1173423.html

The strictures of HIIBEL do NOT apply to a home knock and talk.

 

No again, see my post 90. You never provide case law, I do.

You should be experience enought to cite case law then, you have not.

 

Ahhh I see now. Your a selective reader. Read number 4. That one right there. Obviously if an officer shows up at your house and asks for identification then that manner would imply compliance. Its not like the police showed up guns blazing knocking doors down and screaming.

 

Compliance would be compelled to OPEN the door, did you read the whole case, obviously not, and again, HIIBEL does not apply in home.

 

No you have not. Provide a single case where a cop confronted a person at their home for a LEGITIMATE purpose and that person refused to identify themselves and was arrested and that arrest was nullified.

For example. Police respond to a 911 call of DV.You MUST answer the door and you MUST identify yourself. Plenty of case law to support that.

 

You talk in legal circles, if police showed up at a door on a DV call, that means they were called there, that is not a knock and talk. Once inside, a warrantless arrest can be made on DV and most states make it a mandatory arrest if PC exists.

I'm done with this thread, I keep citing case law and you keep sidestepping it, you have never cited one case, period.

 

And neither have you. I state one thing, and you move the goal posts.

If the police have a legitimate need to question you , then you are REQUIRED to identify yourself. It doesn't matter if you are in your home, in your car, at work, on the road, or whatever. The police have the right to investigate crimes. Now if they knock on your door and ask who you are and you tell them and they tell you they want to search your house, the SMART move is to insist on a warrant, but thats as far as you can go with it. You MUST identify yourself.

 

Grrr. P.O.S. is mad. Look out.

 

When Professor Henry Louis Gates was harassed and arrested by white cops in Cambridge, Massachusetts all the right wingers applauded the criminal actions of the cops, condemned Prof Gates, and condemned President Obama for daring to speak up.

Too bad more libertarians, right wingers, and especially those who call themselves "principled" conservatives, don't object just as strongly to the criminal actions of these cops.

 

I don't understand why the police officers didn't just leave and get a search warrant when they were told to. Probably because they were too lazy, too ignorant of the law and or they knew they had no probable cause to invade this woman's house. (see 4th Amendment to the US Constitution)....Cheers

 

Police aren't required to have a warrant to knock on your door, nor are they required to have one to ask you your name.