Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:35:51 PM EDT
Saw on NatGeo Alaska State Troopers.

2 officers knock on door of guys appartment and he comes outside shutting door behind him.

Officers say they are here for his pot plants but don't have a warrant, can do this the easy way or hard way etc.

Suspect denies entry to home and says come back with warrant.

Officers say OK, but you are not allowed back in your home till we come back with it, this residence is now "secured" because we have reason to believe you have a grow operation inside.



How the hell is this proper legal procedure If you have good reason to believe a crime is in progress inside you don't need a warrant at all correct? Seems like they were BSing the guy so the could be sure to bust him in a bit when they showed up with the warrant. Am I missing something, yes I know it's just a TV show.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 2:49:10 PM EDT
My Law and Order legal education has a problem with that.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 3:21:28 PM EDT
Sure, why wouldn't it be?
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 3:31:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2011 3:32:51 PM EDT by JDC_VA_USMC]
I was curious about that myself. While the guy never admitted to having the pot, his reaction pretty much confirmed it. I don't see how they could not let him back in his own house without any warrant or proof of a crime though.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 3:33:05 PM EDT
I'm always in awe at how stupid criminals can be. He should have just not opened the door at all.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 3:41:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2011 3:44:32 PM EDT by DevilPig]
Originally Posted By JDC_VA_USMC:
I was curious about that myself. While the guy never admitted to having the pot, his reaction pretty much confirmed it. I don't see how they could not let him back in his own house without any warrant or proof of a crime though.


It's similar to how I can stop a vehicle with only reasonable suspicion...that is all that is needed for detainment. He is more or less being detained. On top of that, even with probable cause (the smell of marijuana for instance), a search warrant is still needed in a residence. If he is unwilling to consent to a search, he will be detained until a Magistrate either grants/denies a search warrant. This is mainly due to the fact that illegal drugs are easily discarded/destroyed/etc....if he's let back in the contraband could be destroyed.

It's not like this is a super common thing. I'm not locking down a house over someone smoking a blunt.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 3:45:31 PM EDT
It's perfectly legal to seize an item/items for a reasonable amount of time until a warrant is secured. Prevents the destruction of evidence. This is a far better option for everyone involved.



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 3:49:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went
If you have good reason to believe a crime is in progress inside you don't need a warrant at all correct?
Wrong, unless there is exigency, consent, or plain view you need a warrant
Seems like they were BSing the guy so the could be sure to bust him in a bit when they showed up with the warrant. Am I missing something, yes I know it's just a TV show.
Yes, you can secure the residence and not allow people inside until you can get a warrant. An example of how this should be used would be that you're invited into the residence to take a complaint and you notice a marijuana plant in plain view. You then secure the residence to ensure the occupants don't destroy any evidence while you're speaking to the judge and you go get yoursefl a warrant

Comments in red.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 3:54:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went


Comments in red.


It's not that it's "illegal"...it's just that if they knew there were marijuana plants the best course of action would have been to get the warrant first.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:01:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went


Comments in red.


It's not that it's "illegal"...it's just that if they knew there were marijuana plants the best course of action would have been to get the warrant first.



Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:06:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went


Comments in red.


It's not that it's "illegal"...it's just that if they knew there were marijuana plants the best course of action would have been to get the warrant first.



Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.


Yeah, OK. Keep telling yourself that. Obviously you have never seen the length of a typical "affidavit of underlying facts and circumstances" to obtain a warrant.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:06:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went


Comments in red.


It's not that it's "illegal"...it's just that if they knew there were marijuana plants the best course of action would have been to get the warrant first.



Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.


You're right...that is a possibility also. And I haven't seen the video, so I'm going off just what the OP posted. There are several possibilities...we are guessing unless we were there.

Calling it trickery is a bit much though...I would call it bluffing. If the criminal is dumb enough to fall for it, they deserve it.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:09:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARJJ:
Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went


Comments in red.


It's not that it's "illegal"...it's just that if they knew there were marijuana plants the best course of action would have been to get the warrant first.



Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.


Yeah, OK. Keep telling yourself that. Obviously you have never seen the length of a typical "affidavit of underlying facts and circumstances" to obtain a warrant.


Sure thing boss.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:10:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went
If you have good reason to believe a crime is in progress inside you don't need a warrant at all correct?
Wrong, unless there is exigency, consent, or plain view you need a warrant
Seems like they were BSing the guy so the could be sure to bust him in a bit when they showed up with the warrant. Am I missing something, yes I know it's just a TV show.
Yes, you can secure the residence and not allow people inside until you can get a warrant. An example of how this should be used would be that you're invited into the residence to take a complaint and you notice a marijuana plant in plain view. You then secure the residence to ensure the occupants don't destroy any evidence while you're speaking to the judge and you go get yoursefl a warrant

Comments in red.


Legally present + contraband in plain sight = no search warrant needed. (Of course, if you want to search the whole place now for more, you'll need to get a S/W.

Yes, you can secure a property while awaiting a search warrant. In fact, once you tip your hand and they know you're coming, you kind of have to.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:10:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went


Comments in red.


It's not that it's "illegal"...it's just that if they knew there were marijuana plants the best course of action would have been to get the warrant first.



Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.


You're right...that is a possibility also. And I haven't seen the video, so I'm going off just what the OP posted. There are several possibilities...we are guessing unless we were there.

Calling it trickery is a bit much though...I would call it bluffing. If the criminal is dumb enough to fall for it, they deserve it.


Ditto. Trickery to me = bluffing in such a situation though. I was just adding to the possibilities.

In all reality I agree - showing up with a warrant would have been the best and proper route.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:15:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FFMedic:
Saw on NatGeo Alaska State Troopers.

2 officers knock on door of guys appartment and he comes outside shutting door behind him.

Officers say they are here for his pot plants but don't have a warrant, can do this the easy way or hard way etc.

Suspect denies entry to home and says come back with warrant.

Officers say OK, but you are not allowed back in your home till we come back with it, this residence is now "secured" because we have reason to believe you have a grow operation inside.



How the hell is this proper legal procedure If you have good reason to believe a crime is in progress inside you don't need a warrant at all correct? Seems like they were BSing the guy so the could be sure to bust him in a bit when they showed up with the warrant. Am I missing something, yes I know it's just a TV show.


Change to "good reason to believe a violent crime in progress," no warrant needed.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:18:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went


Comments in red.


It's not that it's "illegal"...it's just that if they knew there were marijuana plants the best course of action would have been to get the warrant first.


Correct, I guess I should have elaborated on that a bit.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:20:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went
If you have good reason to believe a crime is in progress inside you don't need a warrant at all correct?
Wrong, unless there is exigency, consent, or plain view you need a warrant
Seems like they were BSing the guy so the could be sure to bust him in a bit when they showed up with the warrant. Am I missing something, yes I know it's just a TV show.
Yes, you can secure the residence and not allow people inside until you can get a warrant. An example of how this should be used would be that you're invited into the residence to take a complaint and you notice a marijuana plant in plain view. You then secure the residence to ensure the occupants don't destroy any evidence while you're speaking to the judge and you go get yoursefl a warrant

Comments in red.


Legally present + contraband in plain sight = no search warrant needed. (Of course, if you want to search the whole place now for more, you'll need to get a S/W.

Yes, you can secure a property while awaiting a search warrant. In fact, once you tip your hand and they know you're coming, you kind of have to.


Right. Plain view.

I was talking about the part in red. I guess, again I should have elaborated a little more.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:20:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went


Comments in red.


It's not that it's "illegal"...it's just that if they knew there were marijuana plants the best course of action would have been to get the warrant first.



Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.


You're right...that is a possibility also. And I haven't seen the video, so I'm going off just what the OP posted. There are several possibilities...we are guessing unless we were there.

Calling it trickery is a bit much though...I would call it bluffing. If the criminal is dumb enough to fall for it, they deserve it.


Ditto. Trickery to me = bluffing in such a situation though. I was just adding to the possibilities.

In all reality I agree - showing up with a warrant would have been the best and proper route.


Maybe they were trying to clear him by giving him a chance to say "I don't have any pot plants, come on in and see for yourself" ?

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:21:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:


Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.

So, what have they gained by going and talking to this guy? Not a thing. If they couldn't get the warrant they wouldn't have secured the guys residence.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:24:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:
Originally Posted By DevilPig:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
How the hell is this proper legal procedure
It's not, they should have gotten a warrant before they went


Comments in red.


It's not that it's "illegal"...it's just that if they knew there were marijuana plants the best course of action would have been to get the warrant first.



Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.


You're right...that is a possibility also. And I haven't seen the video, so I'm going off just what the OP posted. There are several possibilities...we are guessing unless we were there.

Calling it trickery is a bit much though...I would call it bluffing. If the criminal is dumb enough to fall for it, they deserve it.


Ditto. Trickery to me = bluffing in such a situation though. I was just adding to the possibilities.

In all reality I agree - showing up with a warrant would have been the best and proper route.


For reference, is it still bluffing if I tell a police officer something that is demonstrability false with the intent of getting him to change his actions?
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:24:47 PM EDT
I believe this sort of situation has already wound its way through the court system (within the past 10 years or so), and was found to pass muster.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:25:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:


Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.

So, what have they gained by going and talking to this guy? Not a thing. If they couldn't get the warrant they wouldn't have secured the guys residence.


If they can lie to the owner and get consent then they don't need a warrant and their complete lack of evidence is a non-issue.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:27:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:


Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.

So, what have they gained by going and talking to this guy? Not a thing. If they couldn't get the warrant they wouldn't have secured the guys residence.


I didn't see the episode so I'm not completely sure what happened, but they could have used the securing of residence as more trickery to get him to just give up and let them in.

Can the OP elaborate more?
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:28:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:


Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.

So, what have they gained by going and talking to this guy? Not a thing. If they couldn't get the warrant they wouldn't have secured the guys residence.


If they can lie to the owner and get consent then they don't need a warrant and their complete lack of evidence is a non-issue.


Yep. Roundabout way of being the judge and getting their way - intimidation.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:29:13 PM EDT

Getting the consent of the suspect to search a residence is crap anyway. Just get the darn S/W.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:30:08 PM EDT
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:33:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:36:18 PM EDT
Maybe it's a TV show, and they're trying to misinform the public into thinking it's acceptable.

Either that, or perhaps it was all a bluff because a Judge wouldn't have signed off with what information was available - or they knew he only had a plant or three and didn't want to bother a Judge.

Who knows.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:38:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)



He wasnt being arrested when they asked him. he came outside and shut the door and was talking to the cops on his own free will. They never said " you are under arrest " so they dont have to read him his rights at that time.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:38:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By fettesbrotde:


Maybe they didn't know if they could get a warrant OR the reason they knew the pot plants were there would not get them a warrant....

Ever consider that? If officer x goes to judge x (and judge x is legit) and says so and so told me that perp x has pot plants in his house, how many judges do you think would sign a warrant for that?

It's trickery - the cops probably couldn't get the warrant in the first place.

So, what have they gained by going and talking to this guy? Not a thing. If they couldn't get the warrant they wouldn't have secured the guys residence.


If they can lie to the owner and get consent then they don't need a warrant and their complete lack of evidence is a non-issue.

Perhaps, but in my experience that is not how it works. There are hundreds of ways to get proper evidence and most departments don't want to burn up an informant and piss away the work that has went into the investigation so far.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:39:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)


No, no you don't.

You only need to mirandize if he's in custody.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:46:24 PM EDT
I've heard of them doing that before. I don't know how its legal, but I've heard it happens.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:53:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)


No, no you don't.

You only need to mirandize if he's in custody.


Maybe, maybe not. First they state that he's a suspect in a criminal investigation, then they question him about the crime of which he's accused. Whether or not he's detained (investigatory detention or otherwise), and at exactly what point, would definitely be argued at a suppression hearing and it would be a close point IME.




Link Posted: 1/30/2011 4:56:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2011 4:57:40 PM EDT by freerider04]
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)



He wasnt being arrested when they asked him. he came outside and shut the door and was talking to the cops on his own free will. They never said " you are under arrest " so they dont have to read him his rights at that time.


Rights advise should be given when you ask questions that could come back with an incriminating answer while the person is in a custodial situation
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 5:16:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)


No, no you don't.

You only need to mirandize if he's in custody.


Information from the OP says that the police told him that he wasn't allowed to leave. He was in custody even if the police never said the magic words.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 5:18:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2011 5:19:35 PM EDT by Combat_Jack]
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)


No, no you don't.

You only need to mirandize if he's in custody.



Information from the OP says that the police told him that he wasn't allowed to leave. He was in custody even if the police never said the magic words.

In custody and detained are separate.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 5:23:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)


No, no you don't.

You only need to mirandize if he's in custody.



Information from the OP says that the police told him that he wasn't allowed to leave. He was in custody even if the police never said the magic words.

In custody and detained are separate.


Isn't the question of a custodial interrogation based on the standard of weather a reasonable individual would believe that they are under arrest? A reasonable individual cannot be expected to understand the nuances of the penal code and it would therefore be reasonable for a person that has been told that they cannot leave to believe that they are under arrest.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 5:27:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)


No, no you don't.

You only need to mirandize if he's in custody.



Information from the OP says that the police told him that he wasn't allowed to leave. He was in custody even if the police never said the magic words.

In custody and detained are separate.


I didn't see the episode, but from the sound of it there was definately a custodial situation, even though it fell short of an arrest.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 5:29:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)


No, no you don't.

You only need to mirandize if he's in custody.



Information from the OP says that the police told him that he wasn't allowed to leave. He was in custody even if the police never said the magic words.

In custody and detained are separate.


Isn't the question of a custodial interrogation based on the standard of weather a reasonable individual would believe that they are under arrest? A reasonable individual cannot be expected to understand the nuances of the penal code and it would therefore be reasonable for a person that has been told that they cannot leave to believe that they are under arrest.

Not under arrest. In custody. You can be in custody for questioning, and not free to leave, but not under arrest. But if you're not free to leave and you're being questioned, miranda must be given.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 5:40:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Laramie:

Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By Pita_146:

Originally Posted By bcd:
Originally Posted By 07Commander:
The cop asked him ' how many plants do you have in there ? " . He said maybe 25. That gives them enough .


This is also crap, once you've identified him as the suspect you'd need to mirandize him before asking him stuff like that (if you wanted to be able to use it later for a S/W or whatever.)


No, no you don't.

You only need to mirandize if he's in custody.



Information from the OP says that the police told him that he wasn't allowed to leave. He was in custody even if the police never said the magic words.

In custody and detained are separate.


Isn't the question of a custodial interrogation based on the standard of weather a reasonable individual would believe that they are under arrest? A reasonable individual cannot be expected to understand the nuances of the penal code and it would therefore be reasonable for a person that has been told that they cannot leave to believe that they are under arrest.

Not under arrest. In custody. You can be in custody for questioning, and not free to leave, but not under arrest. But if you're not free to leave and you're being questioned, miranda must be given.



Thank you for clarifying.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 5:44:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dbrowne1:
I'm always in awe at how stupid criminals can be. He should have just not opened the door at all.


This

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 6:01:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FFMedic:
Saw on NatGeo Alaska State Troopers.

2 officers knock on door of guys appartment and he comes outside shutting door behind him.

Officers say they are here for his pot plants but don't have a warrant, can do this the easy way or hard way etc.

Suspect denies entry to home and says come back with warrant.

Officers say OK, but you are not allowed back in your home till we come back with it, this residence is now "secured" because we have reason to believe you have a grow operation inside.



How the hell is this proper legal procedure If you have good reason to believe a crime is in progress inside you don't need a warrant at all correct? Seems like they were BSing the guy so the could be sure to bust him in a bit when they showed up with the warrant. Am I missing something, yes I know it's just a TV show.

Never open the door dumbass.


Link Posted: 1/30/2011 6:03:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By damcv62:
I've heard of them doing that before. I don't know how its legal, but I've heard it happens.


It's called a "Knock & Talk". We do at least a couple a week and I don't even work the hood anymore.

FBI LE Bulletin

The technique the officers seek to employ in the scenario is commonly known as a "knock and talk." Courts have described the knock and talk technique as "a noncustodial procedure where the officer identifies himself and asks to talk to the home occupant and then eventually, requests permission to search the residence." (1) The knock and talk technique is essentially a form of a consensual encounter that occurs at a residence. (2) One court examining a knock and talk case noted that "[t]he utility of this procedure is obvious: It avoids the necessity of securing a search warrant from a judicial officer. While the potential for abuse is apparent, courts and commentators appear to concur the practice can be lawful."
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 6:06:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kilo905:
Originally Posted By damcv62:
I've heard of them doing that before. I don't know how its legal, but I've heard it happens.


It's called a "Knock & Talk". We do at least a couple a week and I don't even work the hood anymore.

FBI LE Bulletin

The technique the officers seek to employ in the scenario is commonly known as a "knock and talk." Courts have described the knock and talk technique as "a noncustodial procedure where the officer identifies himself and asks to talk to the home occupant and then eventually, requests permission to search the residence." (1) The knock and talk technique is essentially a form of a consensual encounter that occurs at a residence. (2) One court examining a knock and talk case noted that "[t]he utility of this procedure is obvious: It avoids the necessity of securing a search warrant from a judicial officer. While the potential for abuse is apparent, courts and commentators appear to concur the practice can be lawful."


And when the officer says that you cannot leave it stops being consensual.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 6:17:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By kilo905:
Originally Posted By damcv62:
I've heard of them doing that before. I don't know how its legal, but I've heard it happens.


It's called a "Knock & Talk". We do at least a couple a week and I don't even work the hood anymore.

FBI LE Bulletin

The technique the officers seek to employ in the scenario is commonly known as a "knock and talk." Courts have described the knock and talk technique as "a noncustodial procedure where the officer identifies himself and asks to talk to the home occupant and then eventually, requests permission to search the residence." (1) The knock and talk technique is essentially a form of a consensual encounter that occurs at a residence. (2) One court examining a knock and talk case noted that "[t]he utility of this procedure is obvious: It avoids the necessity of securing a search warrant from a judicial officer. While the potential for abuse is apparent, courts and commentators appear to concur the practice can be lawful."


And when the officer says that you cannot leave it stops being consensual.

All he would have to do is go into his house, or walk away. If he's stopped from leaving, then it's custody. A knock and talk, by it's very definition, is a consensual conversation.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 6:20:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:

And when the officer says that you cannot leave it stops being consensual.


The property is seized until a warrant is signed, not the homeowner. Homeowner can go wherever he wants except back into the house.

In my experience, about 90% of homeowners sign a consent form to allow LE to search the residence. If the homeowner declines, then its back to surveillance and garbage pulls to develop probable cause for a warrant. It's pretty rare to do a knock and talk when you already have enough to seize the house and obtain a warrant.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 9:32:51 PM EDT
And if the cops want to do a "Knock and Talk", and the home owner declines the opportunity to come out and talk, or decides to converse with the cops from a window, what then? Does that give them cause to enter the dwelling? Not a cop, just asking the question.

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 9:46:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1sscav:
And if the cops want to do a "Knock and Talk", and the home owner declines the opportunity to come out and talk, or decides to converse with the cops from a window, what then? Does that give them cause to enter the dwelling? Not a cop, just asking the question.


Nope, game over.


However, you'd be shocked at how many people can't just keep their mouths shut

Link Posted: 1/30/2011 10:09:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/30/2011 10:18:17 PM EDT by O-Face]
Someone denying entry / consent to a search ,is not, and can not be used as grounds for a search warrant. See your 4th amendment case law.

ETA A crime in progress that would allow you to lawfully gain immediate entry is defined as a situation where there is an imminent danger to life (you or someone else) or continuous pursuit of a person making headlong flight from apprehension. Even if that is the case and the maggot runs into a room with 20 pot plants growing, you still need to secure a warrant but you are allowed to list what you saw as PC for the warrant.
Link Posted: 1/30/2011 10:22:59 PM EDT
Dave's not here.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top