Cops Can Now Enter Your Home Without A Warrant

[beepsbobby1]

bc gonerment has no wright to do this its wrong and dum they dont deserve the power to do this at all and this lwa is un human like they are cold bloded

[curtisjones400]

This is law is wrong and un-constitutional

[firefox8192]

police powers are to be carried out within constitutional limits . see Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Editiion.. on POLICE POWERS. Alas see the difinition of EMERGENCY., CRIME, any statute code regulation policy that are repugnent to the constitution are null and void. JUDGES are revenur atgents for IMF, FEDERAL RESERVE

[DanceRooster]

@firefox8192 Go read the patriot act and tell me about the constitutional power of police.

[VolunteerMinimum]

I can't believe it....I'm speechless.

[InnateIntelligentOne]

police try to enter my home without a warrent ill kill em... ill fucking blow you all up... I hate you pigs.... and you will feel all my rage

[INoIFearIGaming]

@InnateIntelligentOne As much as I agree with you, unfortunately, they will end up killing you and then come up with some bullshit excuse and say you forcefully resisted knowing they were cops and they would get away with it.

[yrtuag]

Friends we are in for a bumpy ride.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: Do you have a cite to any case where the courts have punished severely law enforcement officers who failed to enter under "might be in danger" circumstances?

[CommunityStraightUP]

If anyone breaks in my house, I'm shooting them. Done. No questions asked. I don't care if I die. At least I know that I died fighting for my rights. Booya!

[DavidForthoffer]

@CommunityStraightUP: Instead of dying fighting for your rights, maybe understand your rights better so that you can be prepared to live while suing the pants off officers who illegally enter your home.

[CommunityStraightUP]

@DavidForthoffer I appreciate your concern for my life, but suing and taking them to court, and playing into their game, I'd rather make them play my game, which is the most legal way to do it. Suing and going the passive route is not getting anywhere because they OWN it. Bottom line.

[DavidForthoffer]

@CommunityStraightUP: I suggest that shooting anyone who breaks into your house is not necessarily the most legal way to do it. In certain situations, police DO have the right to break into a person's house, even without a warrant.

I'd hardly call suing a passive route. Non-violent, maybe.

[CommunityStraightUP]

@DavidForthoffer And what situations would be ok to violate my 4th amendment right without probable cause and a warrant? That would be considered an unreasonable search and/or seizure.

[DavidForthoffer]

@CommunityStraightUP: Exigent circumstances are considered reasonable searches and seizures. They include

a) hot pursuit of a felon who knows he is pursued

b) to prevent imminent destruction of evidence

c) danger of serious injury

d) danger of great property damage (e.g. fire)

Even more exigent circumstances are available to police outside of a home, to search a person, car, etc..

[CommunityStraightUP]

@DavidForthoffer Thank you for the knowledge. It is appreciated. And I'm not being smart (can't really tell the tone of what people are saying through text). I just don't understand how any legislation could be in violation of what are rights clearly are, defined by and through the Bill of Rights and the Constitution...

[DavidForthoffer]

@CommunityStraightUP: The Fourth Amendment is not THAT clear. What does "reasonable" mean? What is a "house"? Those two ambiguities have lead to dozens of Supreme Court cases, and not all of those opinions have been consistent.

[CommunityStraightUP]

@DavidForthoffer Well I guess it's ambiguous to those who want it to be, or are looking for a loophole, which we all know "they" do. Since you brought up the point that the word "house" is ambiguous, I guess neither of us will convince the other. Dead end. It was fun though.

[DavidForthoffer]

@CommunityStraightUP: So what is YOUR unambiguous definition of "reasonable" and "house" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment?

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: The ultimate bottom line is what the courts say. The only case you cited held police to a higher standard than "might be in danger".

Fortunately for police officers in a damned-if-you-do;-damned-if-yo­u-don't situation, the vast majority of Americans do not understand their rights or how to handle violations of their rights, so the USUAL bottom line is that they can get away with a "might be in danger" standard.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: Per your own cite:

The police's entry must be based on an objectively reasonable belief, given the information available at the time of entry, that a person within the house was "`in need of immediate aid.'"

That's a bit higher standard than "might be in danger".

I would suggest you read FourthAmendment(dot)com regularly.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: In the case you cited, the 911 call did NOT constitute exigent circumstances. It CONTRIBUTED to exigent circumstances, along with no response to the police calling the number back, the open door, and no one responding to the police shouting through the open door.

The standard is NOT "might be in danger"; it is "probable cause of danger".

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: Your statement was "A 911 call has constituted exigent circumstances since the existance of 911."

The case you cited said a 911 hang call AND ... AND ... AND ... is sufficient to satisfy the exigency requirement.

I reaffirm that a 911 call, by itself, is not exigent circumstances to enter a home. My assertion is supported by my cites, and not denied by your cite.

Try again to find a case where a 911 call, by itself, constituted exigent circumstances to enter a home.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA said Johnson v. City of Memphis (6th Cir.2010) ruled that 911 calls constitute exigent circumstances.

No, they didn't. "We hold that the combination of a 911 hang call, an unanswered return call, and an open door with no response from within the residence is sufficient to satisfy the exigency requirement."

Try again.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: A 911 call is basically a telephone tip, and perhaps even an anonymous tip. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Alabama v. White (1990) that the tip by itself is insufficient for a search. The totality of circumstances must be considered.

For example, in Hopkins v. Sierra Vista (9th Cir. 1991), the court held it was an issue of fact whether the officer had evidence other than the call that justified entry into the home, and sent the case back for trial.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: I challenge you to find EVEN ONE US DIstrict Court where a 911 call, by itself, constitutes exigent circumstances to enter a home.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: I agree that both the judge and the announcer are misrepresenting US v. Barnes in order to sensationalize the news. Truthful news about the case would be something like, "Indiana Supreme Court rules that when police illegally enter your home, you get to sue them, but you may no longer physically fight them."

But nit picking: Property can be categorized as personal (movable) private property, real private property, personal (movable) public property, and real public property.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: Whether property is private or public has NOTHING to do with whether the property is real or personal.

Also, a pre-HUD mobile home IS personal property, even though many states extend certain real property rights to owners of mobile homes, if the owners abide with mobilehome park rules, such as paying rent.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: Police getting a 911 call about a crime being committed inside a home is NOT exigent circumstances to enter the home. Even police OBSERVING a felony taking place within a home is not exigent circumstances. They need probable cause that one of few exigent circumstances exist, such as imminent danger to life.

The D.A. and Supreme Court in the Barnes case KNEW 911 had been called, but also knew that was not exigent circumstances.

[DavidForthoffer]

@TheCommonManUSA: The police in this case did NOT enter with exigent circumstances. Read the court's decision. Everyone involved, including the court, agreed that the police entered illegally. The only issue was whether the homeowner was entitled to physically resist the police.

The court said No, because it is hard for a person to determine legality of an entry in the heat of the moment. The man's recourse is to sue in court for the illegal entry.

[DavidForthoffer]

The commentators are lying. The Indiana Supreme Court NEVER SAID it is legal for police to enter a home without a warrant or exigent circumstances. They said, "we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment. As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance."

Good decision. Terrible, inflamatory reporting.

[obamaisapieceofshit]

you think the federal SCOTUS gives a shit if property rights are trampled? Google Kelo v. City of New London and you'll have your answer. Fuck the modern iteration of the US government for trampling the constitution into an unrecognizable piece of shit and destroying this country.

[ellimist6]

This will raise violence between cops and civilians. If they enter illegally they are to be treated like any other person breaking into your home. I feel that if a cop is going to enter my home w/o a search warrant than they should be shot.

[1mrslapzilla]

@TheCommonManUSA The law of the land is the constitution,4th amendment.his apartment she called the cops,so no warrent you cant go in anyones home this is not east fucking berlin!!!!!!

[doctordude]

Do NOT call the police, EVER.

[skirm123]

Appeal that bullshit. What was Indiana thinking??

[DavidForthoffer]

@skirm123: The bullshit comes from Fox News, who lied about the court's decision. The Indiana Supreme Court CONFIRMED that it is illegal for police to enter a home without consent, a warrant, or exigent circumstances. They further ruled that the officer in this case had none of those, and entered illegally.

[blazacwoot]

People are mad about this now? what about sneak and peek? Patriot Act wake up!

[DarkHempKnight420]

Fuck The Police!