Cops at your door

[x0847Marine]

Dude who asked on range... loud mp3s. In short your answer is "No".

But for everyone, generally...

The police show up at your door, do you have to let them in?

No... officers will, 99% of the time, simply ask to come in and folks think they're under an obligation to oblige. Once inside anything the officers can "sense" is fair game... see, hear & smell.

You absolutely have the right to deny them access to your home. This wont keep them from trying to literally talk you into inviting them in, "we're coming in one way or another", "we'll get a warrant" and "if you have nothing to hide..." were my favorites.

Don't let the color of authority intimidate you, the answer is "no" if that's what you want.

Also, per Cal law, anyway, once you step outside your door...you're in public, meaning if you step out intoxicated, you can be arrested.

Now.. I say this in general, if you just kicked your wifes' bellybutton and think telling the gendarme to wank-off at the door will save you, think again. All you're going to do is delay the inevitable and pissoff everyone including the judge. Why?, because that's a felony and the officers *can* force entry based on their opinion exigent circumstances exist... or get an emergency warrant.

After your arrest you can argue the finer points of law challenging the officers opinion or how valid the warrant is, meanwhile you're with infamous 'Bubba'.

I hope that answers your question... which I didn't really hear.

[capt. apathy]

if you don't know what your rights are, this site is very helpful.

http://flexyourrights.org/

[Gunslinger]

I have to ask, was that post in English or some new quasi language that I don't know about.  

Either way I get the point.  Answer the door and don't give the cops and PC to come in by force (PC being probable cause)

One thing though Cops are just like you and me for the most part.  They are working stiffs with a job to do.  If they don't do their job they get in trouble.  Sometimes if they do their job they get in trouble as well.  Dont give them any reason to come in your home, and if they do come to your door don't disrespect them.  Also, don't beleive them, they are allowed to lie to you to get their job done.  This isn't to say they are bad people they have a crappy job to do......policing  your own.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
if you don't know what your rights are, this site is very helpful.

http://flexyourrights.org/

That's great but it's sending the wrong message:

Plainclothes officers in an unmarked car spotted a suspicious SUV with young Black occupants and temporary tags. The vehicle remained at a stop sign for an unusually long time, during which the driver appeared to be looking into the passenger's lap. When the officers made a U-turn in order to get a second look at the vehicle, it turned suddenly without signaling and reached an "unreasonable" speed. The officers caught up with the vehicle at a traffic light, and upon approaching the driver's side door spotted two large bags of crack in plain view. The defendants were convicted and appealed claiming that the officers' decision to stop them was motivated by an unsupported belief that they were involved in drug dealing, rather than by a desire to warn them about traffic laws.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that for any seizure officers need only cite valid probable cause for any offense. The ruling rejected the defendants' argument that, because the officers' decision to stop them was motivated by an unsubstantiated suspicion of drug dealing and not a genuine concern regarding the manner in which the vehicle was being operated, the seizure was illegal under the Fourth Amendment. In addressing the defendants' argument that racial profiling is encouraged when officers are allowed to pull over motorists for reasons other then the actual crime being investigated, the Court argued that "there is no realistic alternative" to the general principle that probable cause validates a seizure.

What you should know about pretext stops:

A "pretext stop" is a stop in which the officer detains the citizen for a minor crime (i.e. traffic offense) because the officer actually suspects the person of involvement in a major crime (i.e. drug possession). The ruling in Whren v. U.S. demonstrates how easy it is for officers to do this. There are numerous minor infractions for which officers can legally pull over a car, thus officers frequently choose which cars to pull over based on suspicions that something more serious might be going on. Frequently, police officers decide who to pull over based on age, race, and appearance. This is unconstitutional, but impossible to prove.

Therefore, the first defense against pretext stops is to avoid violating any traffic laws. This includes, but is not limited to, obeying speed limits and traffic signs, signaling properly before making turns, and keeping your car in working order. If the officer can't form a convincing explanation for why you were pulled over, the seizure becomes illegal, and any evidence found during the traffic stop can't be used in court. Of course, a legitimate traffic stop always remains a possibility, thus it is important to keep private items out of sight and never consent to searches.

That's all I need right there.  Anything else is playing the race card.  What's a person supposed to think while reading this crap "to get away with crack dealing make sure you drive really well".    Probably cause is what it is.  How one arrives at it is up to the courts.  If the courts rule in favor of the cops (like in this case wch is blatently obvious).  To pull the race card IN THIS CASE is to excuse the crime IMHO.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/pretext_traffic_stops

[Furball]

Originally posted by x0847Marine
and think telling the gendarme to wank-off at the door will save you, think again.

ROFL i think if you told an officer that here you would probably be put on the Sex Offenders list.

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
That's great but it's sending the wrong message:


That's all I need right there.  Anything else is playing the race card.  What's a person supposed to think while reading this crap "to get away with crack dealing make sure you drive really well".    Probably cause is what it is.  How one arrives at it is up to the courts.  If the courts rule in favor of the cops (like in this case wch is blatently obvious).  To pull the race card IN THIS CASE is to excuse the crime IMHO.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/pretext_traffic_stops

the example given was to show how you're behavior could surrender your rights.

  it's going to be very hard to find an example of people giving up their rights and being completely Innocent because those cases don't end up in court.  
when this happens to an Innocent person you just waste time sitting by the side of the road while the cop runs everyones ID and shines a flashlight into every corner of your vehicle after pulling you over because the lens on your taillight has a crack.  or  he fakes probable cause and you sit on the curb while they damn near dis-assemble your car on the side of the road.

both of these examples have happened to me (the first on many occasions), neither ended up in court to be used as an example since they found nothing and my only damages were being late to work or whatever my next destination was. not exactly worthy of going to court.

Innocent peoples rights are violated all the time, but with out damages and a court case they can't be used as a legal precedent.

the actual message seems to me to be a good one-  if you don't want to be hassled by the cops, do your best to not break any laws, even traffic laws.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
the example given was to show how you're behavior could surrender your rights.

  it's going to be very hard to find an example of people giving up their rights and being completely Innocent because those cases don't end up in court.  
when this happens to an Innocent person you just waste time sitting by the side of the road while the cop runs everyones ID and shines a flashlight into every corner of your vehicle after pulling you over because the lens on your taillight has a crack.  or  he fakes probable cause and you sit on the curb while they damn near dis-assemble your car on the side of the road.

both of these examples have happened to me (the first on many occasions), neither ended up in court to be used as an example since they found nothing and my only damages were being late to work or whatever my next destination was. not exactly worthy of going to court.

Innocent peoples rights are violated all the time, but with out damages and a court case they can't be used as a legal precedent.

the actual message seems to me to be a good one-  if you don't want to be hassled by the cops, do your best to not break any laws, even traffic laws.

Their behavior didn't make them surrender their rights, the law did when they broke it.  All this case is saying is that the cops were racist and pulled over a couple of black guys in wich they found drugs on them.  I just don't buy it.

[Maverick]

Was there another thread that spawned this one? It just seems to me to be a continuation of another that I just don't know about. I don't want to respond to it in a substantive manner unless I know what the whole thing is about.

[capt. apathy]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Their behavior didn't make them surrender their rights, the law did when they broke it.  All this case is saying is that the cops were racist and pulled over a couple of black guys in wich they found drugs on them.  I just don't buy it.

they surrendered their rights when they behaved suspiciously.  as I read the story it said that they tried to play the race card but the courts didn't buy it.

the fact that they actually had the drugs has nothing to do with why they were stopped as those weren't found until after.

the point of the article is at what point do the people lose their right to refuse a search, not what was found after.

Mav- AFAIK this thread started here.

[Shamus]

A CI probably told the cops that these two guys were holding, you can always come up with a reason to stop.

shamus

[Gunslinger]

I still think writing a story about a people that are clearly guilty and found guilty all within the boundries of the law is a piss poor example of knowing your rights.  What's the lesson here?  Hide your crack better?

[capt. apathy]

again,
the lesson is - if you don't want to lose your right to refuse a search, don't break the law or engage in suspicious behavior.

[dmf]

I was always told they can't serch your house unless they have a warrant, unless there this little thing called prabal cause

[capt. apathy]

or unless they can talk you into letting them with lies, promises, threats or other tricks.

[dmf]

I wouldn't let them in unless either I called them or they had a warrant.