Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/3/2004 8:25:44 PM EST
Cops recieved a tip from a woman, that a guy who was wanted on outstanding burglary and other warrants was living in a particular trailer. Cops mobilize and go pound on the door. Door is answered by a younger girl, who asks if they have a search warrant, and if she can see it. Cops just bluster and push their way in, and find the guy hiding in a closet. Meanwhile, the girl is getting pissy and flirting with being arrested for disorderly or obstruction (cops are asking her "why don't you go stand over here", and she is responsing angrily "'cause this is my house!").

In the pre raid briefing that they showed, they mentioned arrest warrants, but no search warrants for the actual address.

The agency was a Sheriff's Dept. in WA state. King County I think? The ride along was a Deputy Jiminez.

Would it be safe to assume that there was actually a search warrant issued, based on the intel recieved from the informant? Is entering someone's house against their will without a search warrant legal, just because you have information that someone who is wanted is living there?

Glad they got a bad guy off the street. But if a property owner asks to see a warrant, aren't the police obligated to show it?
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:29:12 PM EST
Not sure about obligated to show the warrant, although, I think you would have to have a warrant. I know that the Patriot Act allows people to be wire-tapped, reconned, searched, etc. without have to notify the person that they are being watched, but you still have to have a court order for that.

--------

"Over the years, America has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.The only amount of land we have ever asked for is enough to bury those that did not return." - Colin Powell
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:29:55 PM EST
Does it fall under a "pursuit" kind of thing? I seem to recall that police are allowed to enter your house without warrant or permission, if they are in "pursuit" of a criminal/suspect.

I guess that sounds a little thin, but perhaps that's the justification.

Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:34:57 PM EST
They can only enter with a warrant, if memory serves. The exception is when actively pursuing a suspect. If they went to the house as a team just to arrest him, I expect they had a warrant.

Cops, correct me if I am wrong and fill in the rest of the gaps please. Thanks in advance.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:37:46 PM EST
Whoops, it is Pierce County. Now they are arresting a Mental Health case who fired a shot through the front door at some people from "Mental Health" and a deputy. Perimeter secured by deputies with MP5's, with long barrels. They look like Speshul Wepuns!
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:38:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2004 8:44:31 PM EST by TENN]
If the person wanted has an outstanding arrest warrant for their arrest + probable cause that the place they are in is their residence then no search warrant is required. If the place they are believed to be in is not their home and they are just a guest then you would need a search warrant plus the arrest warrant. If the guy stays there frequently enought to use it as a residence, even on a part time basis then the police may search for the suspect with an arrest warant only. The arrest warant does not have to be "in hand" when it is served, unlike a search warant. Arrest warants are usually held in records and do not leave unless to be sent to the judicial commissioner's office or to the jail for processing. Search warants are written and sworn out to infront of a judicial magistrate of some type and then the policeman swearing out the search warant has to be present when serving it and is required to give a copy to the resident or leave a copy at the site if noone is there. Hope this helps. By the way this is the federal standard not just my home state.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:38:58 PM EST
They are about 30 minutes from my house then.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:42:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2004 8:44:03 PM EST by Nimrod1193]
As a general rule of law, an arrest warrant coneys with it the authority to search the residence of the subject if there is a reasonable belief that he is there at the time. So if the police received a reliable tip that the subject was living in the trailer (as opposed to merely visiting), a search warrant is not necessary.

ETA: TENN beat me to it.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:43:35 PM EST
Cool, thanks. I was genuinely curious.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:44:10 PM EST
OK, we're back to King County. Dodge Diplomats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:56:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2004 8:57:36 PM EST by smokycity]
The 2004 Florida Statutes

Title XLVII
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CORRECTIONS Chapter 901
ARRESTS

901.04 Direction and execution of warrant.--Warrants shall be directed to all sheriffs of the state. A warrant shall be executed only by the sheriff of the county in which the arrest is made unless the arrest is made in fresh pursuit, in which event it may be executed by any sheriff who is advised of the existence of the warrant. An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.

901.16 Method of arrest by officer by a warrant.--A peace officer making an arrest by a warrant shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of arrest and that a warrant has been issued, except when the person flees or forcibly resists before the officer has an opportunity to inform the person, or when giving the information will imperil the arrest. The officer need not have the warrant in his or her possession at the time of arrest but on request of the person arrested shall show it to the person as soon as practicable

901.15 When arrest by officer without warrant is lawful.--A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant when:

(1) The person has committed a felony or misdemeanor or violated a municipal or county ordinance in the presence of the officer. An arrest for the commission of a misdemeanor or the violation of a municipal or county ordinance shall be made immediately or in fresh pursuit.

(2) A felony has been committed and he or she reasonably believes that the person committed it.

(3) He or she reasonably believes that a felony has been or is being committed and that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing it.

(4) A warrant for the arrest has been issued and is held by another peace officer for execution.

(5) A violation of chapter 316 has been committed in the presence of the officer. Such an arrest may be made immediately or in fresh pursuit. Any law enforcement officer, upon receiving information relayed to him or her from a fellow officer stationed on the ground or in the air that a driver of a vehicle has violated chapter 316, may arrest the driver for violation of those laws when reasonable and proper identification of the vehicle and the violation has been communicated to the arresting officer.

(6) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed a criminal act according to s. 790.233 or according to s. 741.31 or s. 784.047 which violates an injunction for protection entered pursuant to s. 741.30 or s. 784.046, or a foreign protection order accorded full faith and credit pursuant to s. 741.315, over the objection of the petitioner, if necessary.

(7) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed an act of domestic violence, as defined in s. 741.28. The decision to arrest shall not require consent of the victim or consideration of the relationship of the parties. It is the public policy of this state to strongly discourage arrest and charges of both parties for domestic violence on each other and to encourage training of law enforcement and prosecutors in this area. A law enforcement officer who acts in good faith and exercises due care in making an arrest under this subsection, under s. 741.31(4) or s. 784.047, or pursuant to a foreign order of protection accorded full faith and credit pursuant to s. 741.315, is immune from civil liability that otherwise might result by reason of his or her action.

(8) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed child abuse, as defined in s. 827.03. The decision to arrest shall not require consent of the victim or consideration of the relationship of the parties. It is the public policy of this state to protect abused children by strongly encouraging the arrest and prosecution of persons who commit child abuse. A law enforcement officer who acts in good faith and exercises due care in making an arrest under this subsection is immune from civil liability that otherwise might result by reason of his or her action.

(9) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed:

(a) Any battery upon another person, as defined in s. 784.03.

(b) An act of criminal mischief or a graffiti-related offense as described in s. 806.13.

(c) A violation of a safety zone, security zone, regulated navigation area, or naval vessel protection zone as described in s. 327.461.

(10) The officer has determined that he or she has probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor has been committed, based upon a signed affidavit provided to the officer by a law enforcement officer of the United States Government, recognized as such by United States statute, or a United States military law enforcement officer, recognized as such by the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the United States Department of Defense Regulations, when the misdemeanor was committed in the presence of the United States law enforcement officer or the United States military law enforcement officer on federal military property over which the state has maintained exclusive jurisdiction for such a misdemeanor.

(11)(a) A law enforcement officer of the Florida National Guard, recognized as such by the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the United States Department of Defense Regulations, has probable cause to believe a felony was committed on state military property or when a felony or misdemeanor was committed in his or her presence on such property.

(b) All law enforcement officers of the Florida National Guard shall promptly surrender all persons arrested and charged with a felony to the sheriff of the county within which the state military property is located, and all persons arrested and charged with misdemeanors shall be surrendered to the applicable authority as may be provided by law, but otherwise to the sheriff of the county in which the state military property is located. The Florida National Guard shall promptly notify the applicable law enforcement agency of an arrest and the location of the prisoner.

(c) The Adjutant General, in consultation with the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, shall prescribe minimum training standards for such law enforcement officers of the Florida National Guard.

(12) He or she is employed by the State of Florida as a law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10(1) or part-time law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10(6), and:

(a) He or she reasonably believes that a felony involving violence has been or is being committed and that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing the felony;

(b) While engaged in the exercise of his or her state law enforcement duties, the officer reasonably believes that a felony has been or is being committed; or

(c) A felony warrant for the arrest has been issued and is being held for execution by another peace officer.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the authority of an officer pursuant to this subsection is statewide. This subsection does not limit the arrest authority conferred on such officer by any other provision of law.

(13) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed an act that violates a condition of pretrial release provided in s. 903.047 when the original arrest was for an act of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28.

(14) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed trespass in a secure area of an airport when signs are posted in conspicuous areas of the airport which notify that unauthorized entry into such areas constitutes a trespass and specify the methods for gaining authorized access to such areas. An arrest under this subsection may be made on or off airport premises. A law enforcement officer who acts in good faith and exercises due care in making an arrest under this subsection is immune from civil liability that otherwise might result by reason of the law enforcement officer's action.

(15) There is probable cause to believe that the person has committed assault upon a law enforcement officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical care provider, public transit employees or agents, or other specified officers as set forth in s. 784.07 or has committed assault or battery upon any employee of a receiving facility as defined in s. 394.455 who is engaged in the lawful performance of his or her duties.



901.19 Right of officer to break into building.--

(1) If a peace officer fails to gain admittance after she or he has announced her or his authority and purpose in order to make an arrest either by a warrant or when authorized to make an arrest for a felony without a warrant, the officer may use all necessary and reasonable force to enter any building or property where the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be.

Link Posted: 10/3/2004 8:56:29 PM EST
Woo Hoooo! Pierce County "Liquor Control Unit"!!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:02:21 PM EST
smokycity,

So all that, apparently defines the "reasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizure". I assume the courts have ruled on what constitutes reasonable, or unreasonable.

Makes sense to me.....

Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:04:49 PM EST
C'mon SmokyCity... you could have used all that time and energy in searching for that information for something else, something useful... like masterbating with your off-hand and trying to wait for a 7.5 sec. porn clip to buffer.

:)
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:11:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2004 9:12:25 PM EST by smokycity]

Originally Posted By TheKill:
smokycity,

So all that, apparently defines the "reasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizure". I assume the courts have ruled on what constitutes reasonable, or unreasonable.

Makes sense to me.....




It covers the part as for going after people. Search warrants for evidence / contraband are a whole other game.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:35:11 PM EST
It's simple, she opened the door. That is considered letting them in. If you do not open the door, they have to have a search warant or someone better be screaming bloody murder or they cannot kick the door in.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 12:25:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2004 12:37:13 AM EST by PaDanby]
Thor21 What state are you referring to, can you cite the appropriate statutes? or is just your opinion.?

Each state has slightly different Laws of Arrest, Search and Seizure. Those laws are based primarily on the STATE Constitution, and applicable case law as determined by the State and Federal Appeals Courts. What you think is reasonable is probably not what the courts have found to be reasonable. Hell some guys on here apparently feel that having a police car within two blocks is an unreasonable search.

Between you me and the fence post anybody really think they are ever going to see an illegal search on COPS?


Here are the CA Penal code Sections

843. When the arrest is being made by an officer under the
authority of a warrant, after information of the intention to make
the arrest, if the person to be arrested either flees or forcibly
resists, the officer may use all necessary means to effect the
arrest.



844. To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a
felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or
window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in
which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be,
after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which
admittance is desired.



845. Any person who has lawfully entered a house for the purpose of
making an arrest, may break open the door or window thereof if
detained therein, when necessary for the purpose of liberating
himself, and an officer may do the same, when necessary for the
purpose of liberating a person who, acting in his aid, lawfully
entered for the purpose of making an arrest, and is detained therein.



Link Posted: 10/4/2004 12:39:18 AM EST
I parents live in pierce county and I will live there if I can ever get stationed at Ft Lewis. I luv puyallup.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 12:53:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheKill:
Whoops, it is Pierce County. Now they are arresting a Mental Health case who fired a shot through the front door at some people from "Mental Health" and a deputy. Perimeter secured by deputies with MP5's, with long barrels. They look like Speshul Wepuns!



+1
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 3:25:25 AM EST
Well PaDanby, You live in California. The home of the civil rights violation. I am not going to get into a state by state law discussion. The simple fact remains, she opend the door, giving up the police officers' need for a search warrant. All states have different laws reguarding the arrest of a known felon, but the lady was dumb enough to open the door, so it doesn't matter.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 3:52:51 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 3:57:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2004 3:58:11 AM EST by wildearp]

Originally Posted By Nimrod1193:
As a general rule of law, an arrest warrant coneys with it the authority to search the residence of the subject if there is a reasonable belief that he is there at the time. So if the police received a reliable tip that the subject was living in the trailer (as opposed to merely visiting), a search warrant is not necessary.

ETA: TENN beat me to it.



exigent circumstance

tip: possibility of presence
probability of flight
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 4:23:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheKill:
smokycity,

So all that, apparently defines the "reasonable" part of "unreasonable search and seizure". I assume the courts have ruled on what constitutes reasonable, or unreasonable.

Makes sense to me.....




the courts have and statutes of this sort generally parrot the court's holdings....certainly a State legislature could not mandate a "lower" standard than what has been defined in case law
Top Top