Originally Posted By tc556guy:

In that instance your anger should be directed at the politicians who ordered the police to stand down, the politicians who said that rioters needed space to loot, DAs who wouldn't prosecute offenders, etc.

Originally Posted By Justice23:
So if there is an actual argument occurring how do the police know there were no threats or any actual laws broken without actually performing an investigation?

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

In that instance your anger should be directed at the politicians who ordered the police to stand down, the politicians who said that rioters needed space to loot, DAs who wouldn't prosecute offenders, etc.

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

In that instance your anger should be directed at the politicians who ordered the police to stand down, the politicians who said that rioters needed space to loot, DAs who wouldn't prosecute offenders, etc.

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Ah yes, the old "Just following orders" line.

Originally Posted By BMSMB:

If they thought a domestic violence situation was occurring, wouldn't they have the exigent circumstances to enter the house... and wouldn't they have done just that... instead of standing around in front if the house?

Originally Posted By Justice23:
They were still investigating  exactly what was occurring when people started resisting  detainment and obstructing.
So they didn't bust in like gangbusters and since everyone came outside didn't have to force entry and that's a problem?
And I don't think we know if they ultimately went inside since we don't have the complete video. Since what they seemed to believe was an involved party was able to be detained on the porch they didn't have to force their way in initially,  then it went to shit with people resisting and obstructing.

Originally Posted By criley:



Unbelievable.

Two people are standing on a street corner.  How do the police know there isn't a drug deal going on if they don't investigate?

Person is driving down the road.  How do the police know the car isn't stolen if they don't investigate?

Two men pull in to the driveway of a home.  How do the police know it isn't a home invasion if they don't investigate?

According to your threshold, the police can stop anyone anytime and "investigate" their actions.

That's known as a police state and you don't want that.

Or you shouldn't.

Originally Posted By AlaskaJohn:

Is that your Revolutionary War fort (the house) in the background?

Originally Posted By BMSMB:

I was going to make a joke about the castle in the background... I didn't realize it was actually your home though!

Originally Posted By BMSMB:

I was going to make a joke about the castle in the background... I didn't realize it was actually your home though!

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

911 calls over minor things happen all the time.
Given the way they're acting I wouldn't be surprised if there are people in their neighborhood are watching them looking for anything to report them for.
The officers didn't act like the people at the home were frequent flyers, but I be those people aren't getting along with their neighbors.

Originally Posted By LawyerUp:


Either what they see rises (objectively) to the level of exigent circumstances, or voluntary consent to remain, or they get a warrant. If you recall a few years ago, the government tried pushing a "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement, which would have added a third exception to the warrant requirement. But the SCOTUS shot it down, saying it was just something that falls w/in the exigent circumstances exception, if it does. Exigent circumstances as an exception is still pretty broad. But there has to be some immediate reason they have to act now, rather than go get a warrant and come back. This is sometimes applied to the flushing drugs concern scenario, which is sort of tied in w/ the plain view doctrine. They knock on the door, see drugs everywhere and people scrambling, I'm sure one could articulate a concern that evidence would be destroyed prior to a warrant being obtained.

"Investigating," rather than taking immediate action to act on an exigency is exactly what they're not supposed to do. Except within the confines of a knock and talk, which is of course allowed, so long as they're not asked to leave.

Then you have the issue of where you draw the line w/ the curtilage, which can vary by circuit, and possibly be something a jury needs to decide. But the front porch/threshold will always be curtilage. I've seen cases where driveway is not included, depending on the layout of the home.

But remember that warrantless search/seizure in the home/curtilage is presumptively unconstitutional. So the burden is on the government to prove an exception applies. I think a common sense policy of just asking yourself, is there any reason we can't get a warrant first, is a good one. Because even if you find evidence and seize it, it very well may get suppressed. And getting warrants seems way too easy in most places anyways.

This same shit applies when the ATF or FBI shows up at your door. They're not gonna tell you you can tell them to leave. They're gonna "investigate" until you ask/tell them to leave. Enforcing the 4A protections of the home should be a core goal of preserving/enforcing the 2A, and freedom in general. The exigent circumstances exception SHOULD be a high standard. Could judges allow bullshit excuses? Of course.