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

So how does the cop know that the person to whom they are talking is the person who has the right to tell them to go away. If the cops come to talk to me and my teenage son tells them to sod off, thus preventing them from finding, shall we say, meth precursors in his room, how have my rights been protected?

This is not a game, people.

 

You have a right not to answer question as to what you have done. There is no right mentioned in the constitution to refuse to state who you are.

Now tell me how the cops knew she was not just the teenage baby sitter?

What gives that drooling jackass the idea that the federal law enforcement agents do not have the right to demand identification from an obviously deranged and armed stranger hanging out at the entrance to government owned or leased parking? Why is the armed whackoff photographing government installations in an international seaport that carries huge quantities of military supplies?

All you offer here is irrelvent to the topic. We already knew open carriers are nuts.

 

Yes assuming that the cops actually have a right to ask. If they have a line of inquiry they should be able to recognise the difference between a grown adult and a teen, if they can't they're incompetent, and sucks for them if they can't recognise the difference. Your example of meth precursors is basic scare-mongering- if you don't know that your sons a meth-head then thats another problem, not a civil liberties issue. Oh and one more thing; games are as childish as that one liner.

 

9 out of 10 what?

The police should always be held to a higher standard

They are not scumbags they just have a different opinion

 

I disagree with this.

Police, have always been a reflection of society, because police are grown from society.

Saying that police should be held to a difference, higher standard, is both hypocritical, and impossible.

The people who over sight police, are also grown from society.

If you have an immoral culture, that stealing, and murder, and taking bribes, and getting what you can, when you can, is alright..... this idea that somehow the people in the police force, are going to be entirely different, and the people over seeing the police are going to be entirely different... it's crazy.

Internal Affairs is made up of people from society. If you have immoral society, those people be immoral too.

So you have immoral society, spawning immoral police, being watched by immoral over sight..... and you think they are going to be held to a higher standard?

This is like a documentary on the BBC about corruption in Niger. This BBC reporter was in a Taxi Cab, with a member of the government oversight. The guy says to the reporter, that he really doesn't have a job because he can't do anything about corruption himself, because the people in society, are not willing for him to take action. The reporter then asked him why the public supported corrupt politicians. He answered that it was because the public was just like the politicians. They didn't want corruption to stop, because they want in on the action too.

And then, the cab drive says on camera, on air, yeah that's right. They want to be able to get a hand out too when the time comes.

We have seen the exact same thing here in America. Bill Clinton, lied, perjury, witness tampering, abusing women, obstructing justice... on and on... and I had a guy during the Clinton hearings tell me "Oh I thought he looked great! Of course he's lying, but I think it's ok"

Corruption, but he's one of us, he's just like me. I lie. I take advantage of women. I want to get away with criminal acts, so I support Bill Clinton.

If you want better police officer, you need a better societal culture. There is no other way.

 

I guess I think are much better than you do.

 

I walked to the voting both under my own power. I didn't walk up to the cop.

 

That makes zero sense. If a law enforcement officer is investigating a crime and they ask you to identify yourself the Law says you need to comply, period.

 

They had plenty of time to get a search warrant. This was days after the boyfriend was arrested. The Constitution requires a search warrant for such things, and rightfully so. Had they had a search warrant, I agree, she should have been arrested. They did not have one.

 

The law has exceptions for immediacy. Personally, I would have had no problem with the police action if it had occurred RIGHT AFTER the arrest of the former boyfriend. At that time, they had the excuse of going in now before she destroys evidence. However, this was days later. The immediacy is no longer there. If there were evidence, she had plenty of time to get rid of it.

This is why she wouldn't want to identify herself:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Show the relevant statutes for say, Florida, Maryland, Idaho, California and North Carolina (chosen semi-randomly).

 

4th amendment warrantless searches ring a bell? They saw no evidence of a crime being committed to justify entering without one at the time of entry. If they are looking for a man, why should the woman give up her name? Since they had no warrant to begin with, their entry and subsequent arrest is illegal.
Some say, "what's the big deal, she should have just told them who she was." WTF has happened to general principles? She is under no obligation to identify herself because she is not a suspect and wasn't under arrest at the time.
If you do not practice your Rights, you forget how and when to use them.

 

this reply shows how much you really know about your Bill of Rights. As of today, your Bill of Rights trump the police state. They are required BY LAW, to have that little ol' piece of in their little hands when they step onto property UNLESS they actually are in pursuit of a suspect. (something they actually witness at the time) Oh, and yes they are required to leave. Without that paper in their hands, any evidence would have been tainted and unusable. Every cop knows this. So they weren't there to investigate crap.
I know such things because I was working on the new house when I realized there were 5 county cop cars and 8 police in my driveway. No warrant, no complaints supposedly investigating a previous tenant. When they didn't leave, as I requested, I merely called the State Police and threatened to have them arrested for criminal trespass. State police commandant showed up before they could leave and ordered them off the property. You see, they had NO warrant, NO complaint, and just because they claimed to be investigating an old complaint (2 year old) they felt the need to harass me. I straightened the mess out by going and having a little heart to heart with the actual sheriff. And they even knew who I was when they were standing in my drive. They knew their suspect wasn't there.
No complaint, no warrant, no entry. get it? 4th Amendment?

 

I don't think they were there because she dialed 911....................

 

Oh, yes, let's go get a judge out of bed, have him fill out a search warrant while we have 6 or 8 officers watching the place and hope the bleary eyed judge fills it out right, dotting all the I's and crossing all the T's. Think it doesn't happen??? We got a search warrant for a drug house, took out 3 cardboard boxs of drugs out of it and when the case went to court the judge hadn't filled out one line and the case was thrown out. You and your silly friends at the ACLU go play silly games and leave the rest of us alone.

 

Friend, once more, if he gave her address as his address they could, would, and did go there and do what the law said they could do. Get over it.

 

You should fear the police. They are there to serve you. You pay their bills. You have rights. Not saying you have to me mean or rude. I just find more and more people are fearful of the police.

 

Since you were at least a reserve cop can you tell me what your motto was? Like to protect and serve. Or law enforcement?

 

so, they can break in a door and bully the people inside without a search warrant? Regardless, their search was illegal and thus their arrest of her is not only illegal, but unethical as well as unlawful. But I thought you knew that...my bad for thinking you knew what a warrantless search was and the Bill of Rights.
Her (*)(*)(*)(*)ing boyfriend was wanted, not her.

 

oh, and so the po po are the only ones who are allowed to break the Law? Does that mean the law doesn't apply to them, but only the little people?

 

And you know that was the address the police were given by her boyfriend, and you know they knocked and the door was opened and she refused to give her name or answer questions. Let's see, aiding a felon, obstructing a police officer going about his lawful business, I'll bet I can think of half a dozen charges she could be brought up on. The police didn't step out of line, she did.

 

so what, they had her address, then they should have had a warrant with her name on it and or one for the premises. I have run police off when theee's no warrant EVEN if it's an old case they're keeping tabs on. No warrant, no access.
Cops seem to have an extra hard time with the Bill of Rights. But they sure know theirs and couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone's Rights who is NOT in law or law enforcement.
they are thugs..........

 

Here's the "So what", my friend, you steal something, leave it at the address YOU claim to be yours, the police arrive to take the stolen things into custody and someone stands at the door refusing to identify them self's and refusing you entrance. And the police are suppose to know everything??? Mister, they didn't need a warrant, she needed arrested and you need to go back to school and find out what the Bill of Rights mean.

 

No mister, they had the perp's address.

 

What flavor is the jackboot polish this week, boy?

- - - Updated - - -

Probably this: