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

stjames1_53 · Feb 7, 2014

beenthere said: ↑

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.[/QUOTE

what is it about a warrant? now you're inventing a strawman. They still need a warrant. THAT is the LAW, the only exception is when they are in hot pusuit after directly witnessing a crime.
“There isn’t a ‘you didn’t identify yourself’ exception to enter your home and search it. There just isn’t that.”http://www.khou.com/news/crime/A-womans-confrontation-with-deputies--206694581.htm
The attorney who spoke these words is 100% correct.
ANY evidence they might have acquired would have been useless because no search warrant had been issued for that search. Cops cannot arbitrarily start arresting other people because their intended target was not there. there is no need for the lawful citizens to obey illegal and unlawful orders from out of control cops. Regardless, they were looking for a man, not a woman.
And here's yer "so what". they still need a warrant to enter any residence with the intent to search for evidence and or to detain the person they were looking for. THAT is the law. Of course, I would expect the cops to be dirtier than socks covered in horse (*)(*)(*)(*).
If they had a warrant and she interfered, that's a different story. Cops cannot illegally enter anyone's home and start identifying anyone or searching for the "goodies" unless they have a complaint, probable cause (chasing a suspect they witnessed committing a crime), to aid in delivering first responder care, or invited in. There is no requirement that says you must allow the police in just because they are there, UNLESS they have that special little piece of paper that allows them to act like a door doesn't exist. However, they had no such paper.
I have had a similar incident. County mounties came to my house week two of a major remodel looking for a previous tenant. After going around with them about warrants and probably cause they started entering my place uninvited. Pulled firearms and the whole gig. I made it to my cell phone and managed to get ahold of the State Police just as they started to enter my house WITHOUT a warrant. 4 minutes later the State Police showed up and forced the intruders to leave. Their question? Did the intruders have that special little piece of paper? Had they witnessed a crime in progress and in hot pursuit? What was their probable cause?
The Lt. responded that they were involved in an ongoing investigation.....but no, they had none of the requirements. The State Police told them they had to leave.
Even if there's stolen property, they are still required by law to have a search warrant.

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
Click to expand...

.

You need a class in the Bill of Rights:

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment.

Because the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to the states, and federal criminal investigations were less common in the first century of the nation's history, there is little significant case law for the Fourth Amendment before the 20th century. The amendment was held to apply to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

Under the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has sworn by it. Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central questions: what government activities constitute "search" and "seizure"; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. Early court decisions limited the amendment's scope to a law enforcement officer's physical intrusion onto private property, but with Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court held that its protections, such as the warrant requirement, extend to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations. Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.

The exclusionary rule is one way the amendment is enforced. Established in Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained through a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. Evidence discovered as a later result of an illegal search may also be inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree," unless it inevitably would have been discovered by legal means.
Click to expand...

Nope, they still need a search warrant.
Cops don't pay attention to the Rights of the citizens and the law is a inconvenience. By your last statement I get the impression that the schooling you imply is one done in a dark cell with a sap.
Oh, and I believe the apartment in question was not his. That's why a search warrant is needed with ALL the names, goodies they are looking for, and SIGNED by a judge, listing the probable cause.
That is the law.....you don't like it, get over it. and you wonder why the nation is getting sick of the police state, why people are getting pissed at the illegal activities of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing pigs.
And all you've got is "too bad?" Too bad you didn't get your start as a peace officer, you'd know the difference
Click to expand...

stjames1_53 · Feb 7, 2014

Libertarian ForOur Future said: ↑

So if every convicted criminal gives out some random address, it's ok for the cops to come and search the house without a warrant? Cops can't just come into a house on a 'hunch' or because someone gave an address of someone else. The women had every right not to provide her name and the cops were wrong for arresting her.

The only thing I'm ignorant about is when folks force their will onto others and those who support this type of behavior.
Click to expand...

let us not forget the lawn police. Evidently they don't need warrants either:
[video=youtube;PxV2vrgwJLs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpag e&v=PxV2vrgwJLs[/video]

perdidochas · Feb 7, 2014

beenthere said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

They had days in between the arrest of the ex-boyfriend and this incident. Time was not critical. If there were any evidence the lady had days to dispose of it. That argument doesn't work. I said in an earlier post that it would be a different thing if they had done this immediately after the arrest. Then they would have had the excuse of needing to do so immediately before evidence was destroyed.

I'm not an ACLUite. I'm a conservative who is against the intrusion of government beyond the bounds of the Constitution. The Founders wanted us to have protection against search and seizure unless a search warrant was done. I don't take things like that likely. I bet you are also in favor of gun control and in limiting campaign speech, as the Constitution doesn't seem to matter to you. The judge gets paid well, he can take a few late night calls.

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.

perdidochas · Feb 7, 2014

beenthere said: ↑

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.
Click to expand...

They had days between the arrest and the attempt at breaking in to her apartment. They should have had a warrant after days. Now, if the incident occurred immediately after his arrest, your argument would be valid.

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.

stjames1_53 · Feb 7, 2014

perdidochas said: ↑

They had days between the arrest and the attempt at breaking in to her apartment. They should have had a warrant after days. Now, if the incident occurred immediately after his arrest, your argument would be valid.

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.
Click to expand...

you are 100% correct. Even with a firm conviction that stolen property was in there, in order for charges to stick, they must have that magical piece of paper that allows them to brutalize people in their own homes.
Boot-strapped Nazis really hate the Bill of Rights unless it applies to them only.

Alucard · Nov 13, 2015

I don't think Jennifer Limon should have been arrested.

Log in or Sign up

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

stjames1_53 Banned

stjames1_53 Banned

perdidochas Well-Known Member

perdidochas Well-Known Member

stjames1_53 Banned

Alucard New Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

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

stjames1_53 Banned

stjames1_53 Banned

perdidochas Well-Known Member

perdidochas Well-Known Member

stjames1_53 Banned

Alucard New Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches