Got a legal question

D

Dead

New member
Ok, Something I saw on "abcnews.com" got me thinking
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/firefind001003.html


Could evidence of a crime be used against you in a court of law if a firefighter found said evidence while putting out a fire in your home if you DID NOT Call the Fire Dept???

Do they have any legal grounds to enter your home without your permission??? (Calling them that there is a fire in your home would be permission)

I dont think that evidence could be used against someone if found under these circumstances... Seeing how it would be a violation of the 4th (Firefighters are Government employee's no?)

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]

[This message has been edited by Dead (edited October 03, 2000).]
 
There is an implied permission to enter a burning building as the safety and well being of the community at large is at risk.

Firefighters do not have to have your permission to enter your burning premisis; and any effort on your part to prevent them from doing so will be met by armed force from the local constabulary.

Once they are in your abode they can, and will, turn any and all evidence they find in the performance of their duties as an ancillary act which falls within the scope of their duties. Even though it was the fire that knocked down the walls that formerly concealed the contraband you would still be held accountable once that barrier is removed and the contraband is exposed to public view.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
So if the cops want to search your house, they CAN NOT get a warrent. Then all they have to do is start a fire, and bingo anything found can and will be used against you.

Implied consent my ass!

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]

[This message has been edited by Dead (edited October 03, 2000).]
 
The courts have recognized "exceptions to the warrant requirement.

One is the emergency exception, which applies when immediate action is required to protect persons or property. Property can be entered without a warrant if necessary to protect that property or stop a crime in progress. Another exception is for the "fresh pursuit" of criminal suspects who enter to hide from police.

Another exception is the "plain view" doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence in plain sight, once they are lawfully on the premises.

I don't agree with these decisions, but thought you would want to know the names of the doctrines under which your rights are disregarded. It is interesting to note that a significant number of the people who call the police each day end up getting arrested themselves because of these doctrines.

Regards,

Ledbetter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top