• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is Probable Cause at Risk? Is this a win or a setback?

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,402
Location
White Oak Plantation
And the 911 call, combined with the officers actually hearing some of the argument, gave them reason to believe that all was not good. ...
This is where you and I depart. Hearing unusual noises is not seeing foul play.

A 911 call is justification for sending cops.

There is no justification to invade the home, after the home owner acknowledges the cops presence and then informs them that all is good. Citizens lying to cops must not be the default condition, just as felon in possession of a gun is not the default condition for a cop to stop a OCer on the public streets.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I absolutely accept the concept of exigent circumstances.

I don’t want cops standing around outside my home waiting for a warrant, while a BG beats me to death. If cops reasonably believe that someone is in danger inside a home, it is imperative that they be able to enter without a warrant.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
This is where you and I depart. Hearing unusual noises is not seeing foul play.

A 911 call is justification for sending cops.

There is no justification to invade the home, after the home owner acknowledges the cops presence and then informs them that all is good. Citizens lying to cops must not be the default condition, just as felon in possession of a gun is not the default condition for a cop to stop a OCer on the public streets.
Seeing is not required to create reasonable belief. In fact, seeing would be rare in exigent circumstances. Hearing would be the far more likely sense to create exigent circumstances.

Regarding the cops being “informed”: see my bank robbery analogy. If the man were beating the mess out of the woman, do you think he would say that all was not OK??? Also, the victim in domestic violence cases almost always backs up the perp, but under duress. The cops should believe their senses, not the words of people who almost exclusively lie in the very circumstances with which the cops seemed to have been presented.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,729
Location
here nc
I absolutely accept the concept of exigent circumstances.

I don’t want cops standing around outside my home waiting for a warrant, while a BG beats me to death. If cops reasonably believe that someone is in danger inside a home, it is imperative that they be able to enter without a warrant.
ROFLMAO...

Oh please eye95...”the facts” state the LEs waited 15-20 [your choice] therefore your tired, whiny ar$e would be beat to chopped liver while awaiting this LE group to respond to their concept of exigent circumstances...

Thanks tho...great visual of keystone cops waiting outside all the while the BG ‘exercises’ on you...13633
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Citizens lying to cops must not be the default condition for cops. You hold a differing view, no biggie.
You are right. However, under some circumstances, such as this one (and my bank robbery example), it is reasonable for cops to not accept the word of a probable perp and a probable victim under duress. That is not to say they should assume lying, but that they should want verification from their own senses.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,359
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I absolutely accept the concept of exigent circumstances.

I don’t want cops standing around outside my home waiting for a warrant, while a BG beats me to death. If cops reasonably believe that someone is in danger inside a home, it is imperative that they be able to enter without a warrant.
If that is the case then move to England. Your way of thinking is contrary to the fourth amendment and our founding fathers. The fourth Amendment does not say one word about exceptions. But, the SC created exceptions out of thin air. The bastardized all the amendments to favor the government.

That thinking makes you a fish out of water on this forum.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
My most humble apologies for not following the party line. I am forever sorry that I don’t have a closed mind, but am capable of independent thinking.

The 4A does not prohibit police action to save people in danger—as well it should not.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,359
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
My most humble apologies for not following the party line. I am forever sorry that I don’t have a closed mind, but am capable of independent thinking.

The 4A does not prohibit police action to save people in danger—as well it should not.
Yes it does. The 4th is clear, no warrant, no entry. There is no exceptions in the 4th.

I may buy your idea of exigent circumstances IF the cops CANNOT charge anyone with a crime. And, that will be a cold day in hell for that to ever happening.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,359
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The 6th. curcuit court of appeals just ruled meter-maids chalking your tires for parking infractions is a 4th. Amendment trespass. Yet, you can be charged with interfering with cops braking down my door without a warrant.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
1. You might try rereading the 4A. It does not say that.

2. Under court rulings, while reacting to exigent circumstances, the plain-sight rule applies. If the cops are someplace lawfully, and happen to see evidence, it is admissible. They are not allowed to search.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,359
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
1. You might try rereading the 4A. It does not say that.

2. Under court rulings, while reacting to exigent circumstances, the plain-sight rule applies. If the cops are someplace lawfully, and happen to see evidence, it is admissible. They are not allowed to search.
So, what did the cops see through the solid door? Nothing.

The 4th. amendment says clearly that a search without a warrant is unreasonable.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
1. You might try rereading the 4A. It does not say that.

2. Under court rulings, while reacting to exigent circumstances, the plain-sight rule applies. If the cops are someplace lawfully, and happen to see evidence, it is admissible. They are not allowed to search.
Yes actually it does say exactly what COL posted. Plus some.

There are no exceptions to getting a warrant

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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Yes actually it does say exactly what COL posted. Plus some.

There are no exceptions to getting a warrant

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.
Actually, it does not say what he claims it says. The language is plain.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
You are the ones making the positive contention about what it says. It is incumbent upon you two to show that the 4A even requires a warrant to do a search.

However, nowhere have I contended that anyone was trying to do a search without a warrant.

Please don’t argue with that which I did not say.

I you want to disagree with my precise statements, let’s. If not, meh.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
You are the ones making the positive contention about what it says. It is incumbent upon you two to show that the 4A even requires a warrant to do a search.

However, nowhere have I contended that anyone was trying to do a search without a warrant.

Please don’t argue with that which I did not say.

I you want to disagree with my precise statements, let’s. If not, meh.
Posted it so you could read it.
The 4A requires a warrant to search.
Plain as day. Even down to the points if specifically naming what the search is for, where, etc.

Can't offer more proof that post it in its entirety to prove a search constitutionally required a warrant.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
You are the ones making the positive contention about what it says. It is incumbent upon you two to show that the 4A even requires a warrant to do a search.

However, nowhere have I contended that anyone was trying to do a search without a warrant.

Please don’t argue with that which I did not say.

I you want to disagree with my precise statements, let’s. If not, meh.
<
OK your claiming police have a constitutional right to enter a home if they think they have reason too, with no warrant?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,359
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This is the 4th Amendment diagrammed.
13634

Very simply, without a warrant a search is unreasonable, period.

To say otherwise is contrary to the plain reading on the amendment.
 
Top