Weird Police Response

Status
Not open for further replies.
Per normal with these type topics, we get two stories. The first, then we respond with our opinions, the the OP makes another post with information we didn't have, changing the whole incident.

Based on the first post. We responded based on the info provided. Then a second post that would require a different reply.

First Post: Nothing was said about the home owner knowing the cop, only that a report of a crime, possible burglar in residence.

I and others replied with how we would have handled it as cops. In my case the Home owner would have stayed out side, WITHOUT THE GUN. I would have searched the home, whether the owner wanted me to or not. I don't know who owns the house or if there may be a hostage forcing the home owner to tell me everything is OK. Once determined it was a bogus call I'd have went about my business.

The comes the second post where more officers responded, some of who knew the home owner, Different story all together, different response would be required. In the second post. I would have taken the home owner's word, since I know him, I would be able to tell if he's saying no crime is occurring on his own or if he was under duress.

Just think, if the OP would have told the whole story in the first post. there would have been less, people with panties in a wad and less cop bashing.

I have seen and responded to both simular cases (the two post) and handled them both different.

But in the end, it shows what happens in real life, cop responds with out having the whole story, and has to act with what information he's given. You never know. The only guarantee in police work is no two calls will be the same.
 
Kraigwy: The first police officer, I did not know him. The second and third showed up AFTER we had already entered my house and began searching it.

Sorry for the mis-communications on the first post, now that you mention it, it does seem like I changed the story.
 
Last edited:
Uncle Buck
Senior Member



Rusty: :eek:
Click to expand...

Ok, dont like that scenario, How about this.

LEO responds to burglary call.

Finds one armed male, one male with no arms.
Male with no arms was trying to hotwire truck.:eek:
 
UB said" A lady from a company I had been waiting to hear from called my number and someone answered my phone." She called the cops after the 'robbing your house' response.

The root cause of the problem, I'd be willing to bet lunch on, is that the lady mis-dialed your number. Someone decided to have some fun with their answer. Some seem to take pleasure in answering mis-dials with "Oh the cops just arrested him for drugs/child p0*n/murdering his mother-in-law", robbing UB's house, etc.
Glad no one got shot, robbed or otherwise totally stressed out.
 
I think you're right TXAZ. How many instances of "crossed phone lines" are really the result of a simple misdial, or because the number is easy to confuse when writing or reading it? There's a eye doctor's office phone number that's one digit different from my landline. :eek:

Powderman, if a resident ID'd himself and his home address matched, would you insist (or does your department's policy insist) on a walk through even if the resident refuses permission to enter?

It seems to me that the exigency exception to the warrant requirement does not (or at least should not) apply if the alleged crime is a property crime and the resident insists the report is invalid.
 
you cant blame a police officer for wanting to control the situation, its his job. if you were in his situation you would want the alleged homeowner to disarm
Click to expand...

Of course, the police officer wants that, and you can't blame him for wanting that. He probably also wants to win the lottery and have a wife who looks like Angelina Jolie or Charlize Theron. However, what he wants is irrelevant.

As a citizen, I want to live, and as it happens, I have the right to do so. In support of that right, in many places we have the right to be armed to defend ourselves.

I can't blame the police officer for not trusting the homeowner, since he doesn't know that in fact you are the home owner (at least until you show him ID). You could be one of the burglars, or, even if you are the homeowner, you could be a criminal homeowner with a meth lab in your basement.

Despite that, he is absolutely wrong if he wants you to leave your means of self-defense behind, and then accompany him into harm's way.

The argument that the police officer doesn't know your level of training is irrelevant. We don't know that police officer's level of training or competence either. (and all of you law enforcement types who are mustering breath to defend your honor -- I'll bet you know at least one guy on your department who you'd rather not have backing you up)

I certainly don't think it's a good idea to leave your gun behind, then accompany the cop into the house, where dangerous criminals may be lurking. If the cop goes down, where are you then?

That being said, all of us often do things that aren't the wisest courses of action. In the moment, I'd probably have complied with the police officer, and gone into the house with him (unarmed), and only later when thinking about it decide that it was a stupid thing to do, and the smart thing to do would be either insist on taking my gun, or waiting outside (with the gun) while the cop took the risks. If he's unwise enough not to wait for back-up, that's his call.
 
I have dealt with cross numbers before(old cordlesses too where older ladies listen to your phonecalls;//when I was in college a woman did that and showed me how). Cross calls happen less but seem to happen with cellphones more. I do know if I call my mom's cellphone without pressing 1 first it goes to someone else's phone. That is pretty weird since you do not need to dial a 1 for cell #'s but I guess I am wrong about that since she lives out of state. My wife thinks it is funny because I dial the area code...where I grew up started that when I was single digits. Where we live it is still 7 digit territory.

Of course the LEO has a job to do. If you gave him a hard time then he might focus his attention on you. I am not a cop, but this one seemed pretty trusting. If I was a cop no way you're entering with me with a gun, but if you get sketchy and disagreeable I would probably just wait for backup and respect your wishes about not entering your house. Either way the cops are going to probably search the apt.
 
I'm gonna have to go with gm1967 on this one. You are on my property, whether leo believes me or not maters not, it's that whole innocent untill prover guilty thing. You don't get to treat me like a criminal just because you are afraid.
 
@tyme: Short answer--yes.

Here's why: I have no clue if everything is on the up and up. Unless I personally know you, the only information that I have is that you are standing outside of a house where I received a burglary call with a gun in your possession. That's it.

What I do about that depends on your demeanor. At the very best, you'll be relieved of your firearm on a temporary basis, and you'll get to talk to one of the back up officers who will keep you company for a bit while we clear the house.

Once again--this is if I don't know you. And--depending on the call, type of call and time of call--it still might happen IF I know you. If it is a burg call, there might be a variation on how the situation is addressed.

If it is a DV call, however, or an assault call, things change. Now, I have a complaint of violence committed against a person and I see you walking around with a firearm?

Do you actually expect to keep control of that firearm while I investigate the call? If so, you're living in Dreamland.

And please...for those who are gearing up for our regularly scheduled cop bashing break, don't feed me this soup about "You're not getting into my house!!!" If I can articulate that someone is in danger, that means I'm going in. Period.

And if there are no signs that someone is getting hurt but the call receiver/Dispatch says that it even SOUNDS like someone was getting hurt, guess what? I'm STILL going in--with a backup, of course.

No signs at all? If I can still articulate probable cause that someone might be in peril in the home, just how long do you think it takes to get a telephonic search warrant, as it's known? Yep, I'll be up all night with the paperwork--but it's a tool that can be used.

Some of you will now say, "But there is no reason to believe that I'm a criminal!!!"

Think of John Wayne Gacy.

Another protest might be, "Well, if there's no evidence of injury, and we're just having a disagreement, you have no right to (fill in the blank)."

Think of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Folks, some of you actually exhibit a paranoid delusional knee-jerk response whenever the word "police" is mentioned.

Stop...just STOP and relax. Take a deep breath and calm down, will ya?
 
I'm gonna have to go with gm1967 on this one. You are on my property, whether leo believes me or not maters not, it's that whole innocent untill prover guilty thing. You don't get to treat me like a criminal just because you are afraid.
Click to expand...

of course if he feels threatened he has the right to detain you and make sure you have no weapons. If backup comes, while he goes inside if you say no the backup can stay out and watch you.

I can name many examples of when the LEO really doesn't care if you feel he has no right to treat you like a criminal. He has a job today, and it is possibly an unsafe situation until proven otherwise.
 
Based on the original post, I'm very sure the Officer did exactly as the Law allows. Of course that's only based on 34+ years experience in Law Enforcement.
 
Powderman said:
Here's why: I have no clue if everything is on the up and up. Unless I personally know you, the only information that I have is that you are standing outside of a house where I received a burglary call with a gun in your possession. That's it.
Click to expand...

Well, I have no problem with any of that.

I guess my problem with this instant case has more to do with a failed sanity check by the 911 operator/dispatcher, and/or by the cop if this was treated as a probable cause situation.

Sending cops to the scene of an alleged burglary reported by the alleged burglars to a 3rd party who merely *thinks* he or she called the right number? Does treating that as probable cause seem like a good idea to anyone? If an apparent resident wants to let cops do a walk through, okay, but otherwise I don't see how it rises to the level even of probable cause in order to get a warrant. Much less exigent circumstances.

As quoted in the OP, that's a classic prank on a caller who misdials. I could see myself doing that to an unwanted solicitor, even if they had the right number, although I will think better of it now.
 
tyme, and others...

While I know there are other LEO's on here with more then my 8 years of service, I'd like to just make the comment that while, keeping a sane head is always good for all involved, the dispatcher, is only going on the third party that reported the burglary. The deputy again was only going on what recieved via radio, MDT, or radio/telephone. Good chance it was a prank caller in this case, but let a call go unanswered because it "may" be a prank, and then let the lawsuits begin. The last person I caught for breaking and entereing here was reported by guess what? A third party caller. So I dont have a problem with the response, because it was, on the surface, what appears to be a legit call for service.

Second... As to the response of the officer disarming the property owner for a few mins until everything was verified, I dont have a problem of that either, as long as it was a reasonable time, and policy/law was followed in the state in question. It would be reasonable and legal here. Keep in mind, it would be, to me at least, a quick securing of the firearm, leaving the property owner with back-up and a quick sweep of the house to ensure there wasnt a dead body, etc in the house. Thats what I am looking for period. The reason behind that I would use to articulate my reason behind that in court, would be not only the call I was dispatched on, but also, due to my years in law enforcement, I have experienced many domestic violence situations that were improperly reported due to "DV Victim" being instructed to call 911 and report anything but a domestic violence event, and even with the ID showing the same address, I wanted to ensure everyones safety.

I am also a volunteer firefighter as well for close to 20 years now, and for about 2-3 years of that, some person or agency told victims of domestic violence to call 911 and say that their house was on fire, instead of reporting a DV event. Didnt take long to start having law enforcement dispatched with fire to slow some of the silly stuff. But it took a few years for that "training" to get out of the system. Why have I said all this? Stuff gets reported wrong/different on a daily basis. Its life. Other things get reported wrong on a daily basis, and even an address will be messed up.

While I wasnt there at this event, as long as it was a quick detain/sweep then release with a short discussion of the whys, I dont see a huge problem. For an average house around here, with a person who co-operates, its going to take say 5-10 mins. At the end of the day, being in law enforcement I have learned there is never a time when everyone is happy with my actions. Thats my take on what I would do on a call as this. Again, not legal advice either, just my personal opinion from my experience.
 
Last edited:
Suppose nobody seemed to be home. Is the scenario in the OP sufficient grounds to break in and do a search? Do you LEOs think that a judge is likely to issue a search warrant in such a situation?

@fishing, I'm going to guess that that 3rd party report of a break in was from someone who claimed to actually witness it. Hearing someone on the phone claim to be a burglar is a far cry from seeing a burglary.
 
tyme,

"Suppose nobody seemed to be home. Is the scenario in the OP sufficient grounds to break in and do a search? Do you LEOs think that a judge is likely to issue a search warrant in such a situation?

@fishing, I'm going to guess that that 3rd party report of a break in was from someone who claimed to actually witness it. Hearing someone on the phone claim to be a burglar is a far cry from seeing a burglary."

First answer is, if your saying that everything is locked up tight, no one home, no damage visable, attempt to contact property owner is not successful, then its up to the supervisor, or if I am working a 1 person shift, then its up to the magistrate on duty, who would normally say no. I do have to call and ask a supervisor or the magistrate. If nothing else, it is noted and placed on a close watch list until property owner is found then checked. We can enter for a fire/burglar alarm activation alone if the property owner can not be found. It comes up every now and then. Basically no one wants to listen to the alarm siren squall 24/7, and no, not all alarms reset after a few minutes.

Second answer...Its a LONG story. Basically, a farm employee saw another employee doing something funky, and the first employee called, another, who then called another to check on it. Somewhere down the line after that, the property/farm owner was called since they were out of town, and then they called 911. The call was dispatched on the radio (it was in the county) as deputy 1234, reported 10-code for break-in at so and so addy, from "third party caller" (the property/farm owner who called was third party as he had not actually witnessed anything). Sometime later a BOLO was sent out for the county and other PD's except for mine which is in the far corner of the county away from the original call. Until I spotted the vehicle, all I knew was the basics, as the county has MDT's they use for everything but dispatch, and we do not.
 
Last edited:
Based on the original post, I'm very sure the Officer did exactly as the Law allows. Of course that's only based on 34+ years experience in Law Enforcement.
Click to expand...

post of the day and week, possibly the winning post for November:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top