no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes
- Thread starter Timeframe
- Start date
- Status
youngunz4life
New member
just me
I'm not resisting the police.
That being said, I've never sued anyone in my entire life but there are ways to become rich that I wouldn't pass up and are 100% legal.
I'm not resisting the police.
That being said, I've never sued anyone in my entire life but there are ways to become rich that I wouldn't pass up and are 100% legal.
That talking head probably should have put a direct quote from the sheriff on the page.
In a local paper a reporter wrote that having an FFL authorizes you to carry a concealed weapon here in Texas... a guy had shot a person over an argument about a dog and killed the dog and the owner. I wrote the paper about the error never heard back from them.
Also a few weeks later a guy from the paper wrote an article about lawsuits and used a couple of examples that were urban legends.
I was interviewed for an article about my military service in the local paper. All I can say is think about your answers and qualify them thoroughly to the media people. I even asked the reporter for a copy of the article before it was published to make sure what I said was in the proper context. Even then when I read it in the paper there was a thing or two that was not in the proper context as changes were made.
I still work for the military and every now and then I get a call from the media. I keep the Public Affairs Officer's telephone number handy for them. lol
So if you see something in the paper or media that makes you want to joint the rope, pitchfork and fire brigade... you might want to get the rest of the story as Paul Harvey says.
In a local paper a reporter wrote that having an FFL authorizes you to carry a concealed weapon here in Texas... a guy had shot a person over an argument about a dog and killed the dog and the owner. I wrote the paper about the error never heard back from them.
Also a few weeks later a guy from the paper wrote an article about lawsuits and used a couple of examples that were urban legends.
I was interviewed for an article about my military service in the local paper. All I can say is think about your answers and qualify them thoroughly to the media people. I even asked the reporter for a copy of the article before it was published to make sure what I said was in the proper context. Even then when I read it in the paper there was a thing or two that was not in the proper context as changes were made.
I still work for the military and every now and then I get a call from the media. I keep the Public Affairs Officer's telephone number handy for them. lol
So if you see something in the paper or media that makes you want to joint the rope, pitchfork and fire brigade... you might want to get the rest of the story as Paul Harvey says.
Last edited:
I have revisited this thread several times and finally read the original article. As I read it, the couple was arguing outside and then went inside. The man then denied entry. It sounds to me like this was a legal entry by police because of probable cause. The thinking may have been that the woman could have been threatened or injured and that the man was denying the officers access to her, thus interfering with proper investigation.
As for the nonsense about the justice stating that unlawful entry is justified...I still have to say, "Huh? Unlawful is unlawful. What can be too difficult for a judge to understand? The guy sounds moronic and IMHO should be disbarred."
If LEO truly tries to enter my residence without probable cause or a warrant, I am not likely to interfere unless proper ID has not been presented. Then it is open season on prowlers.
But if properly ID'd, I would be as polite as possible to avoid any complications. I would then sort out the legalities later.
Maybe I am missing something here?
As for the nonsense about the justice stating that unlawful entry is justified...I still have to say, "Huh? Unlawful is unlawful. What can be too difficult for a judge to understand? The guy sounds moronic and IMHO should be disbarred."
If LEO truly tries to enter my residence without probable cause or a warrant, I am not likely to interfere unless proper ID has not been presented. Then it is open season on prowlers.
But if properly ID'd, I would be as polite as possible to avoid any complications. I would then sort out the legalities later.
Maybe I am missing something here?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The only thing you might be missing is the modern tendency of police departments to turn just about every warrant "service" into a dynamic entry. The classic concept of knocking politely, identifying themselves as police (which means showing an ID, not just wearing a uniform that can be purchased over the Internet) and allowing the occupant to read the warrant (and thus have an opportunity to point out that the warrant is for John Smith on 1234 Donut Drive, not for Jon Smythe on 123 Doughnut Street) has been thrown under the bus ... generally in the name of "officer safety" (although they usually claim it's to protect the public).Eagle Eye said:
Basically, they don't like the idea that they are supposed to "serve" warrants. They prefer to rely on a "shock and awe" strategy so they can (hopefully -- for them) overwhelm any objections by massive display of force. Which was perhaps a viable concept ... up until the bad guys started wearing cop uniforms to perpetrate home invasions. The cops (and the courts) are either behind the times or intentionally playing dumb in that they do not acknowledge that there is no way I can KNOW that the posse of armed men in black BDUs bashing in my door at oh-dark-thirty are really cops. Anybody can yell, "Police! Open up!"
It's the same principle as requiring the red paint on the muzzles of airsoft pistols. How does that tell a cop not to shoot the person holding the pistol? Does any sane person think a BG isn't smart enough to put some red paint on the muzzle of a real gun?
No knock warrants, short delay warrants, and dynamic entries should not be allowed -- period.
Last edited:
A similar case in Tucson results in the death of an Iraq war vet. The circumstances are obviously different, but Pima County's SWAT team has just executed a drug raid and killed a vet - shooting him 60 times. He was armed, but never took his weapon off safe. I'm reserving judgement at this point, but obviously no one can be happy with this outcome.
csmss, in the abc link you posted, the police have withheld comment on whether any illegal materials were found at Guerena's house. OTOH, Guerena's widow's lawyer has flat-out stated that the police found nothing illegal at the house.
I can't believe he'd make such a bold statement if the police had found anything, as it might open him up for libel or slander; so, the facts aren't in yet, but I will be surprised if the Tucson SD found anything.
Also, the SWAT team did a dynamic, no-knock entry on a home that had at least one infant inside.
So, I am not reserving judgement. Even if drugs were there, executing a no-knock AFTER THEY HAD SEEN THE BABY was ridiculous, moronic, brainless, take your choice of adjectives.
I can't believe he'd make such a bold statement if the police had found anything, as it might open him up for libel or slander; so, the facts aren't in yet, but I will be surprised if the Tucson SD found anything.
Also, the SWAT team did a dynamic, no-knock entry on a home that had at least one infant inside.
So, I am not reserving judgement. Even if drugs were there, executing a no-knock AFTER THEY HAD SEEN THE BABY was ridiculous, moronic, brainless, take your choice of adjectives.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's what we're talking about.chasep255 said:
The cops take a very narrow view that "We've got badges and uniforms, we're the police!" They overlook the fact that when they're outside bashing on the door, the people on the inside can't SEE the badges and the uniforms. And since anyone can buy a badge and a uniform, that doesn't provide any proof that the guys smashing through the door aren't home invaders, anyway. Yeah, it may be a real cop and he may have a technically-legal warrant to conduct a no-knock entry -- but if I'm the guy inside, and they have the wrong address on the warrant or somebody lied to get the warrant, how am I supposed to know they are legitimate?
If you read through the archives of no knocks gone bad on the web site of the Cato Institute, there are any number of cases where warrants were "served" on people who bought a house and moved in, six months prior. The cops were so out of date they had no idea that the people they were after had not lived at that address for SIX FREAKIN' MONTHS.
youngunz4life
New member
not to mention the old couple in chicago on the news. they are old and have been raided BY MISTAKE about 4 times or more
I think I see some confusion here.
I dont think it's legal for the police to enter a private place based upon probable cause. They may enter with a warant. That warrant must be based upon probably cause. That probable cause must pass a two pronged test, and be aproved by a justice, or a judge.
As I remember there are several exceptions to this rule
1) Permission.
2) Exigent circumstance
3) Danger of loss or destruction of evidence.
4) Evidence open to plain view
There may be another my old mind cant remember... forgive me.
In order to obtain a no knock endorsement the judge must agree that knocking, and announcing will put the officers lives, or the lives of others in danger.
It seems that some judges are granting no knock warrants as a matter of course for anything involving narcotics. I personally think thats bad.
There's also some confusion about how these warrants are served. What we mostly see on TV and all the swat show's isnt a dynamic entry. It's a controlled entry. A SWAT team stacked up, flash bang's, armored vehicals, house surrounded, a plan in place, intelligence in place... All of this add's up to a controlled entry. This is and should be the method in 99% of all narcotics warrants. It's also the safest method for the police, and for the subjects in the warranted location.
A dynamic entry is usually less organized, and is more critical situation driven. Traditionaly a dynamic entry is used when there isnt time to organize a controlled entry.
A Controlled entry is ALWAYS conducted by SWAT or a similar unit that has been trained, and experienced in this work. They are equiped with the proper tools, and again experience for this. When conducting a controlled entry they have been briefed, set up a plan, a disaster plan, assingned duties to each member. They are a team working by the same rules, and plans. In my experience they are 99% successfull.
A dynamic entry could be performed by a SWAT team... but could be performed by other properly trained officers. The best way I can describe a dynamic entry is by saying it's an adjustable entry. The officers must adjust to conditions as they develop.
I dont think it's legal for the police to enter a private place based upon probable cause. They may enter with a warant. That warrant must be based upon probably cause. That probable cause must pass a two pronged test, and be aproved by a justice, or a judge.
As I remember there are several exceptions to this rule
1) Permission.
2) Exigent circumstance
3) Danger of loss or destruction of evidence.
4) Evidence open to plain view
There may be another my old mind cant remember... forgive me.
In order to obtain a no knock endorsement the judge must agree that knocking, and announcing will put the officers lives, or the lives of others in danger.
It seems that some judges are granting no knock warrants as a matter of course for anything involving narcotics. I personally think thats bad.
There's also some confusion about how these warrants are served. What we mostly see on TV and all the swat show's isnt a dynamic entry. It's a controlled entry. A SWAT team stacked up, flash bang's, armored vehicals, house surrounded, a plan in place, intelligence in place... All of this add's up to a controlled entry. This is and should be the method in 99% of all narcotics warrants. It's also the safest method for the police, and for the subjects in the warranted location.
A dynamic entry is usually less organized, and is more critical situation driven. Traditionaly a dynamic entry is used when there isnt time to organize a controlled entry.
A Controlled entry is ALWAYS conducted by SWAT or a similar unit that has been trained, and experienced in this work. They are equiped with the proper tools, and again experience for this. When conducting a controlled entry they have been briefed, set up a plan, a disaster plan, assingned duties to each member. They are a team working by the same rules, and plans. In my experience they are 99% successfull.
A dynamic entry could be performed by a SWAT team... but could be performed by other properly trained officers. The best way I can describe a dynamic entry is by saying it's an adjustable entry. The officers must adjust to conditions as they develop.
IMO the problems begin when Officers who arent trained to do either try to make a dynamic entry.
Sometimes people including police Officers confuse a premis search with a dynamic entry. This is extremely dangerous for the Officers, and the people inside the warented location.
Comments?
Sometimes people including police Officers confuse a premis search with a dynamic entry. This is extremely dangerous for the Officers, and the people inside the warented location.
Comments?
youngunz4life
New member
Glenn I can't comment much on that post but it is also true that every officer involved doesn't always have a lot of experience or expertise(they are human) so this can cause issues and mistakes.
I can comment on Don's last post. I too(if I am understanding your post and remembering some other previous posts from last night), do not think the police can enter without a warrant. whatever the exception(s), they need pertinent reasons(baby's life in harm as an example), a signature, a go-ahead for proper authority, etc, etc. Arresting someone who exercises their constitutional right to refuse to allow a search doesn't seem correct to me. A person can be detained or held outside while a warrant is attempted to be obtained as one example(like if the owner has stated something about numerous pot plants as an example and the officers dont want them destroyed, flushed, whatever wile they attempt to get a search/warrant approved. someone can refuse a search; the cops are going to search if they want to or feel they can anyways but you lose your rights when you willingly allow the search(which lawyers will tell you not to do).
I can comment on Don's last post. I too(if I am understanding your post and remembering some other previous posts from last night), do not think the police can enter without a warrant. whatever the exception(s), they need pertinent reasons(baby's life in harm as an example), a signature, a go-ahead for proper authority, etc, etc. Arresting someone who exercises their constitutional right to refuse to allow a search doesn't seem correct to me. A person can be detained or held outside while a warrant is attempted to be obtained as one example(like if the owner has stated something about numerous pot plants as an example and the officers dont want them destroyed, flushed, whatever wile they attempt to get a search/warrant approved. someone can refuse a search; the cops are going to search if they want to or feel they can anyways but you lose your rights when you willingly allow the search(which lawyers will tell you not to do).
Don H.
I have seen those kinds of mistakes happen. In every case it was sloppy investigative, and police work. Sometimes in indifferent judge will fuel the fire. But those incidents are few and far between.
I'll describe the method of obtaining a warrant I used.
First off IMO the least reliable kind of information is that from an informant.
An officer using an informant to obtain a warrant must exercise extra care in proving the information as well as the location to be searched.
The informant must be reliable, and have been reliable in the past.
The information taken from the informant should be independantly investigated, and proven by the police. The information must also be recent.
Once both of those points have been met... The informant must physically mark the location he has sworn is the scene of criminal activity. Before entering the police must see the informants mark, and that the exact address matches the warranted address.
If there is a difference however slight the warrant is invalid for this location. In our case depending on the time of day we could call in for a telephonic warrant, or a telephonic amendment to the existing warrant.
Glenn D.
I have seen those kinds of mistakes happen. In every case it was sloppy investigative, and police work. Sometimes in indifferent judge will fuel the fire. But those incidents are few and far between.
I'll describe the method of obtaining a warrant I used.
First off IMO the least reliable kind of information is that from an informant.
An officer using an informant to obtain a warrant must exercise extra care in proving the information as well as the location to be searched.
The informant must be reliable, and have been reliable in the past.
The information taken from the informant should be independantly investigated, and proven by the police. The information must also be recent.
Once both of those points have been met... The informant must physically mark the location he has sworn is the scene of criminal activity. Before entering the police must see the informants mark, and that the exact address matches the warranted address.
If there is a difference however slight the warrant is invalid for this location. In our case depending on the time of day we could call in for a telephonic warrant, or a telephonic amendment to the existing warrant.
Glenn D.
That's my understanding as well. Castles are somewhat legally sacred. Probable cause doesn't cut it. LE needs a warrant or exigent circumstances to enter.
However, these days exigent circumstances could probably be met if an officer articulates that there were pine tree fresheners hanging from the rear view mirror of a car parked in the driveway, and he was worried the people inside had seen him and were going to somehow dispose of their entire mj grow operation (judged by the number of car air fresheners) in the time it took to get a warrant.
However, these days exigent circumstances could probably be met if an officer articulates that there were pine tree fresheners hanging from the rear view mirror of a car parked in the driveway, and he was worried the people inside had seen him and were going to somehow dispose of their entire mj grow operation (judged by the number of car air fresheners) in the time it took to get a warrant.
- Status