Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: x0847Marine on January 07, 2006, 11:17:39 PM
-
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.
-
if you don't know what your rights are, this site is very helpful.
http://flexyourrights.org/ (http://flexyourrights.org/)
-
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.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if you don't know what your rights are, this site is very helpful.
http://flexyourrights.org/ (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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
A CI probably told the cops that these two guys were holding, you can always come up with a reason to stop.
shamus
-
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?
-
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.
-
I was always told they can't serch your house unless they have a warrant, unless there this little thing called prabal cause
-
or unless they can talk you into letting them with lies, promises, threats or other tricks.
-
I wouldn't let them in unless either I called them or they had a warrant.
-
just install a trapdoor with a hidden tiger pit undrneith and when they try to talk you into comming in, pull the secret lever and down they drop.
When the next group comes to find out what happened to the first just tell em
"I dunno. they said they were going out to the patrol car and would be right back and thats the last I saw of em.";)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
When the next group comes to find out what happened to the first just tell em
"I dunno. they said they were going out to the patrol car and would be right back and thats the last I saw of em.";)
or you could just pull the lever again
-
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.
well, yeah... ;)
This applies even more so when you realize that often officers will call a nearby K-9 officer to walk his dog around the exterior of a driver's vehicle after he has stopped the car for a traffic violation and his suspicion is aroused by something.
But the officer won't ask your permission for this because, in this case, it isn't considered a "search." Therefore, you can't refuse it. Of course, if the dog alerts to contraband, it will establish probable cause to do a warrantless search of the interior, which is permitted by the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
Then of course, the law allows that officers may briefly search persons and nearby accessible areas in the interior for weapons while they are doing their job, and it goes rapidly downhill from there. This scenario seems to happen more often at night time when the K-9 officers are more likely to be on duty - and looking for something to do with that highly trained Czheckoslovakian raised German Shepard with stainless steel teeth implants that responds only to commands in the German language. :eek:
-
not sure how the courts would come down on that scenario, but I'd think calling for a K-9 unit to do a more thorough investigation of your car with out some sort of probable cause should be out.
it would be one thing if the dog was already with the officer at the initial contact. but elevating the level of inspection without legitimate probable cause doesn't seem right.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
not sure how the courts would come down on that scenario, but I'd think calling for a K-9 unit to do a more thorough investigation of your car with out some sort of probable cause should be out.
it would be one thing if the dog was already with the officer at the initial contact. but elevating the level of inspection without legitimate probable cause doesn't seem right.
No need for probable cause to have the dog walk around the car. Also I have seen good handlers turn the dog on and off with voice or hand signals.
shamus
-
When the cops come to my door, I just yell "I'm armed!"
-SW
-
I know what you mean,Capt. Apathy. But if the vehicle is lawfully detained, it wouldn't be considered a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
It certainly isn't against procedure to ask for backup, and a K9 officer on duty will respond if he isn't doing anything... and once on scene, the k-9 officer has descretion to leave the dog in the car or let him out.
There is a lot of this activity at night near the major drug arteries, esp north/south in Florida.
This sounds a little whacky, but maybe the logic behind this apparent oversite in protecting people from overzealous cops is that K9 dogs are considered to be "police officers" in some ways. As you probably know, whatever is in a police officer's "plain view" is fair game for search and siezure.
It may be that a vehicle so reeking of drugs or chem precursors, pot, whatever, that a K9 dog can detect it from outside the lawfully detained vehicle, in a place the dog and his handler have a right to be, is considered "plain view" for a K9 dog with their natural sense of smell. I could be wrong ... not sure of the theory behind it, I'm just guessing. Maybe Maverick knows...
-
I think you are extrapolating it a little too far Gunthr. It's much simpler.
If a Cop stops you for erratic driving and smells alcohol on your breath, it is probable cause to detain you for drunk driving.
If a K9 unit smells marijuana in your car, it gives them probable cause to believe you are in possession of marijuana.
-
You cant "lose" your right to refuse a search, and you cant "lose" your right to refuse entry by the police.
You can agree to either if asked, thats not the same thing.
As far as entry into a home, there are a lot of people who think they always need a warrant. They dont. There are many circumstances under Federal law in both Canada and the USA that allows police to enter under certain circumstances, examples include witnessing a felony being commited, or being freshly pursued by police, those are just two. I wont bother with a 10,000 page list of them all, but there are a few out there, and of course, every state in the USA has a seperate state criminal code as well, so it depends on where you live.
Most police are well versed in what circumstances they can demand entry, or a search of your person, they do it for a living. Many people get themselves in hot water by assuming they know the law, when they dont. That being said "always know your rights" I agree with 100 percent. Be informed.
-
I think you are extrapolating it a little too far Gunthr. It's much simpler.
If a Cop stops you for erratic driving and smells alcohol on your breath, it is probable cause to detain you for drunk driving.
If a K9 unit smells marijuana in your car, it gives them probable cause to believe you are in possession of marijuana.
I have a knack for doing that. Lazer. ;)
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if you don't know what your rights are, this site is very helpful.
http://flexyourrights.org/ (http://flexyourrights.org/)
When I was stationed at the Brooklyn Naval Yards in the early 70's me and a friend of mine were walking around browsing in store windows, when I felt a jab in my back. It was a New York cop jabbing me with his night stick. He simply motioned with the stick and said "Move On". As we walk on down the street I turned to my friend and said "Wait a minute, he can't do that". My friend replied " Go back there and tell him that, he'll call for a few of his buddies, drag you back in the nearest alley. and then after beating the crap out of you arrest you for assaulting a police officer. Moral of the story. If you know what your rights are, make sure you have plenty witnesses.
-
Or he could've just just stared that cop in the eye 'til he left.:D
Les
-
While we're on this subject, for those curious...
12. How do my rights apply during security checks?
Be aware that private security personnel outnumber police officers in the United States by three to one. As a result, you may be more likely to be confronted by a security guard than by a police officer. You must also be aware of the following places where security personnel (governmental or otherwise) are permitted to search you without a warrant:
Border Searches - The Supreme Court has held that an officer does not need a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion to search you, your car, or your belongings, at a border. Therefore, any time you cross a U.S. border, you in effect consent to a search.
Airport Searches - Be aware that airport security personnel do not need a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion to search you or your belongings before boarding any commercial airline. Again, any time you board a commercial airline, you in effect consent to a search.
Private Security Checks - Private security personnel have a right to search you as a condition of entry into private property, for example. It is up to the individual to decide if a search is worth the price of admission. As long as you are free to walk away, the security personnel do not pose a threat to your constitutional liberties.
Keep in mind that a security guard can turn illegal drugs over to a police officer. In such a case, the drugs are then admissible in evidence, because the search was conducted by a private security guard. And at the present time the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches carried out by non-governmental employees like private security guards.
-
So does that mean that I could require the cops to submit to a search before I allowed them to enter my home? Could I confiscate their weapons for the duration of their time on my private property? :D
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
When the cops come to my door, I just yell "I'm armed!"
-SW
Be sure to tell them that you're not coming out as well.
Before you know it, you'll have dozens of cops outside your door.
-
Originally posted by Squire
You cant "lose" your right to refuse a search, and you cant "lose" your right to refuse entry by the police.
You can agree to either if asked, thats not the same thing.
As far as entry into a home, there are a lot of people who think they always need a warrant. They dont. There are many circumstances under Federal law in both Canada and the USA that allows police to enter under certain circumstances, examples include witnessing a felony being commited, or being freshly pursued by police, those are just two. I wont bother with a 10,000 page list of them all, but there are a few out there, and of course, every state in the USA has a seperate state criminal code as well, so it depends on where you live.
Most police are well versed in what circumstances they can demand entry, or a search of your person, they do it for a living. Many people get themselves in hot water by assuming they know the law, when they dont. That being said "always know your rights" I agree with 100 percent. Be informed.
Good point, here's just a few:
Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;
Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;
Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;
Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;
Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.
-
I thought police had John Doe warrants with them in their car at all times. These are blank letter warrants to be used any time when necessary.
Les
-
they will have the blank warrant forms with them, or in templet form in their laptops, but they still have to be filled out to specifically describe premises to be searched, what their searching for, and basis for probable cause, and then, they have to go get a judge to sign it before they can execute it.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Good point, here's just a few:
Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;
Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;
Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;
Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;
Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;
Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.
America. Land of the Formerly Free, Home of the Gelded Sheep....
-
Forgot to mention they're signed by a judge ahead of time.
Les
-
Not in Canada, must be a USA thing, but yes, they would be approved by a Judge, as police do not issue themselves warrants.
"So does that mean that I could require the cops to submit to a search before I allowed them to enter my home? Could I confiscate their weapons for the duration of their time on my private property?"
- No, because powers of search and arrest are granted to Police and agents of the police under statute, as a private citizen, you have no power to exercise that authority. In cases where you can, like "citizens arrest" you do have some rights under the law, for instance you may apprehend a felon and use what force is neccesary to prevent escape, untill the police arrive, but thats a narrow right, there are others, granted to citizens depending on circumstance. Self defense is a right as well. You can defend your person, or another person, without waiting for the police. You can defend your property, and use force that is reasonable to that end.
There are certainly some differences between the USA and Canada, I know that you cannot conduct a search of an auto repair shop without warrant under normal circumstances, as a business, you would need a warrant to search it, or any business, unless you were talking about an extraordinary circumstance, like you chased a bank robber into one, or something like that.
-
Squire spit out the hook. Leslie didn't even bait that one and you bit on it. :rolleyes: :lol