Posted: 1/18/2015 4:55:06 PM EDT
| My latest article was inspired by recent events in Oklahoma. Here are the four legal means for Entering a Residence. |
|
Quoted: Normally wouldn't say this but sounds like a good shoot on the home owners part. As you say there are right and legal ways to enter a home. Seems like the sheriff fucked up by the numbers. The Sheriff didn't enter the residence. The chief of police for the city entered the residence. A couple of deputies from the local Sheriff's Office (a completely separate agency) did back him up on the call. Also, as I noted in the article, not all of the information is available. There may very well be other information that would have justified an entry under the exigent circumstances exception.
|
|
Quoted: Is this the swatting incident that was just in the news? Someone called 911 said they were in the house. The police came, entered the home, then was shot by the home owner? If it was, is swatting enough reason to enter a home with A warrant? According to the articles that I have read, the caller made a bomb threat to an unoccupied day car and used the name of the resident during the call. From there, the chief went home of the person whose name was used and made entry and was shot. The four instances in which a home may entered are listed in the article. If the circumstances reported amount to an exigent circumstance then entry could be made without a warrant. Whether or not it is "swatting" wouldn't be known until after the fact. For instance, we get a call from woman claiming that a burglar is in their house and is stabbing her husband, that would be an exigent circumstance for which entry into the home could be made without a warrant. It is a situation that requires an immediate response. It could be that it was a legit call, or it could be the next door neighbor was mad about the aforementioned couple's dog dumping in her yard. Do we respond immediately if the call seems credible, or do we investigate every other possibility before making entry into the house in a person is reportedly being stabbed to death? |
|
Quoted:
According to the articles that I have read, the caller made a bomb threat to an unoccupied day car and used the name of the resident during the call. From there, the chief went home of the person whose name was used and made entry and was shot. The four instances in which a home may entered are listed in the article. If the circumstances reported amount to an exigent circumstance then entry could be made without a warrant. Whether or not it is "swatting" wouldn't be known until after the fact. For instance, we get a call from woman claiming that a burglar is in their house and is stabbing her husband, that would be an exigent circumstance for which entry into the home could be made without a warrant. It is a situation that requires an immediate response. It could be that it was a legit call, or it could be the next door neighbor was mad about the aforementioned couple's dog dumping in her yard. Do we respond immediately if the call seems credible, or do we investigate every other possibility before making entry into the house in a person is reportedly being stabbed to death? Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this the swatting incident that was just in the news? Someone called 911 said they were in the house. The police came, entered the home, then was shot by the home owner? If it was, is swatting enough reason to enter a home with A warrant? According to the articles that I have read, the caller made a bomb threat to an unoccupied day car and used the name of the resident during the call. From there, the chief went home of the person whose name was used and made entry and was shot. The four instances in which a home may entered are listed in the article. If the circumstances reported amount to an exigent circumstance then entry could be made without a warrant. Whether or not it is "swatting" wouldn't be known until after the fact. For instance, we get a call from woman claiming that a burglar is in their house and is stabbing her husband, that would be an exigent circumstance for which entry into the home could be made without a warrant. It is a situation that requires an immediate response. It could be that it was a legit call, or it could be the next door neighbor was mad about the aforementioned couple's dog dumping in her yard. Do we respond immediately if the call seems credible, or do we investigate every other possibility before making entry into the house in a person is reportedly being stabbed to death? With the trend of swatting....better systems need to be put into place for verifying the call. |
|
Quoted: If those reports of a bomb threat are true, is that enough to enter a home? The example you gave I would think is plenty enough of a reason. The bomb threat? I don't know, but I don't have to make those decisions. I don't have anything other than a few articles on the incident, and I really don't want to speculate as to whether they had enough to make entry. I will give an VERY, VERY qualified answer: if all I had was a bomb threat being linked to a house, no, I wouldn't go in on such a situation. I'd request an EOD unit and apply for a warrant. Forcible entries into homes where bombs may be doesn't seem healthy to me.
|
|
Quoted: With the trend of swatting....better systems need to be put into place for verifying the call. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Is this the swatting incident that was just in the news? Someone called 911 said they were in the house. The police came, entered the home, then was shot by the home owner? If it was, is swatting enough reason to enter a home with A warrant? According to the articles that I have read, the caller made a bomb threat to an unoccupied day car and used the name of the resident during the call. From there, the chief went home of the person whose name was used and made entry and was shot. The four instances in which a home may entered are listed in the article. If the circumstances reported amount to an exigent circumstance then entry could be made without a warrant. Whether or not it is "swatting" wouldn't be known until after the fact. For instance, we get a call from woman claiming that a burglar is in their house and is stabbing her husband, that would be an exigent circumstance for which entry into the home could be made without a warrant. It is a situation that requires an immediate response. It could be that it was a legit call, or it could be the next door neighbor was mad about the aforementioned couple's dog dumping in her yard. Do we respond immediately if the call seems credible, or do we investigate every other possibility before making entry into the house in a person is reportedly being stabbed to death? With the trend of swatting....better systems need to be put into place for verifying the call. Verification is actually getting harder. Landlines will at least provide an address for where the call originated, but cell phone won't, and landlines are rapidly fading away in favor of cell phones.
|
|
Quoted:
Verification is actually getting harder. Landlines will at least provide an address for where the call originated, but cell phone won't, and landlines are rapidly fading away in favor of cell phones. Modern 911 can get the gps location of a cellphone that calls. |
|
Quoted: Modern 911 can get the gps location of a cellphone that calls. Quoted: Quoted: Verification is actually getting harder. Landlines will at least provide an address for where the call originated, but cell phone won't, and landlines are rapidly fading away in favor of cell phones. Modern 911 can get the gps location of a cellphone that calls. If GPS is activated on the phone, and it isn't precise enough to distinguish between neighboring houses, and it can be spoofed.
|
|
If officers involved in use of force incidents are judged based upon their perception of the facts and situation at that moment, are regular citizens afforded the same standard of judgment?
I know it's a bit off-topic from the original article, but let's say an officer is truly justified based upon the exigent circumstances or a warrant. Officer forcibly enters the home, whereupon he encounters a homeowner that believes he is under attack in his own home by an unknown assailant, and that homeowner defends himself. Does the officer's justifiable actions automatically mean the homeowner is in the wrong, or can both be right in the eyes of the law? |
|
Quoted: If officers involved in use of force incidents are judged based upon their perception of the facts and situation at that moment, are regular citizens afforded the same standard of judgment? I know it's a bit off-topic from the original article, but let's say an officer is truly justified based upon the exigent circumstances or a warrant. Officer forcibly enters the home, whereupon he encounters a homeowner that believes he is under attack in his own home by an unknown assailant, and that homeowner defends himself. Does the officer's justifiable actions automatically mean the homeowner is in the wrong, or can both be right in the eyes of the law? I do think that it is possible, for lack a better term, for a legal draw to exist.
|
|
Quoted:
If GPS is activated on the phone, and it isn't precise enough to distinguish between neighboring houses, and it can be spoofed. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Verification is actually getting harder. Landlines will at least provide an address for where the call originated, but cell phone won't, and landlines are rapidly fading away in favor of cell phones. Modern 911 can get the gps location of a cellphone that calls. If GPS is activated on the phone, and it isn't precise enough to distinguish between neighboring houses, and it can be spoofed. For 911 it cannot be deactivated. And it's precise to less than 30 feet. More than enough to prevent swatting. |
|
Quoted: For 911 it cannot be deactivated. And it's precise to less than 30 feet. More than enough to prevent swatting. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Verification is actually getting harder. Landlines will at least provide an address for where the call originated, but cell phone won't, and landlines are rapidly fading away in favor of cell phones. Modern 911 can get the gps location of a cellphone that calls. If GPS is activated on the phone, and it isn't precise enough to distinguish between neighboring houses, and it can be spoofed. For 911 it cannot be deactivated. And it's precise to less than 30 feet. More than enough to prevent swatting. And if a person sits outside your house and makes the phone call? |
|
Quoted:
For 911 it cannot be deactivated. And it's precise to less than 30 feet. More than enough to prevent swatting. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Verification is actually getting harder. Landlines will at least provide an address for where the call originated, but cell phone won't, and landlines are rapidly fading away in favor of cell phones. Modern 911 can get the gps location of a cellphone that calls. If GPS is activated on the phone, and it isn't precise enough to distinguish between neighboring houses, and it can be spoofed. For 911 it cannot be deactivated. And it's precise to less than 30 feet. More than enough to prevent swatting. Define "modern." Are you talking about the extreme potential of current technology, or what is actually in use by larger, better funded departments? In addition to what Chief said, ours is lucky if they can get the right street from GPS, and it is a large metro area department. Trailer park or apartment complex, where most of our 911 calls come from? Forget about it. |
|
Quoted:
And if a person sits outside your house and makes the phone call? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Verification is actually getting harder. Landlines will at least provide an address for where the call originated, but cell phone won't, and landlines are rapidly fading away in favor of cell phones. Modern 911 can get the gps location of a cellphone that calls. If GPS is activated on the phone, and it isn't precise enough to distinguish between neighboring houses, and it can be spoofed. For 911 it cannot be deactivated. And it's precise to less than 30 feet. More than enough to prevent swatting. And if a person sits outside your house and makes the phone call? or taps into your land line. |
|
This type of story scares me more than anything else with regard to my safety and the safety of my family.
I'd like to hope that any LEOs entering my house would identify their selves beyond any doubt, but I've got to say.. entering my house in the middle of the night, with the alarm going off, I cannot guarantee that I would hear them ID.. and IM CERTAINLY not going to hesitate in that case. while home invasions arent even remotely common in the part of town I live in, break ins have and do happen. I think about that scenario all the time.. ETA: I dont give the law any reason to enter my house, but then again, neither do most of the homeowners in these swatting incidents. we dont have a land line anymore, so that level of verification wouldn't be possible. Erick Erickson was even swatted... (sometime last year, I believe) |
|
Chief what about entering a residence based on a welfare check?
Happened to me because I had a pissed off ex call the local PD simply because I wouldn't answer her calls anymore. I was in bed, asleep, at 10:00 pm. Unsure if they even knocked, but I woke up hearing someone in my living room and seeing lights on from under my bedroom door. They entered with a master key the get from the office of my apartment community. I mean I understand the liability of any department if they don't do it. But come on, the ex was standing outside waiting on them to show up. Had a little sense been used they could have asked her what vehicle I drove and checked the hood to see if it was still warm (which It would have been since I had only returned home about an hour before), and came back the next morning. But shouldn't there be something in place that would allow someone that was in the position I was in to have charges automatically filed against the caller if the person on the end of the welfare check is found to be perfectly fine and just wanted to be left alone. Because there is no obligation for anyone to answer their phone or even answer the door if they choose not to. I can't even begin to describe just how pissed off I was about that incident. I'm glad somebody (namely me) didn't get welfared to death. |
|
Quoted: Chief what about entering a residence based on a welfare check? Happened to me because I had a pissed off ex call the local PD simply because I wouldn't answer her calls anymore. I was in bed, asleep, at 10:00 pm. Unsure if they even knocked, but I woke up hearing someone in my living room and seeing lights on from under my bedroom door. They entered with a master key the get from the office of my apartment community. I mean I understand the liability of any department if they don't do it. But come on, the ex was standing outside waiting on them to show up. Had a little sense been used they could have asked her what vehicle I drove and checked the hood to see if it was still warm (which It would have been since I had only returned home about an hour before), and came back the next morning. But shouldn't there be something in place that would allow someone that was in the position I was in to have charges automatically filed against the caller if the person on the end of the welfare check is found to be perfectly fine and just wanted to be left alone. Because there is no obligation for anyone to answer their phone or even answer the door if they choose not to. I can't even begin to describe just how pissed off I was about that incident. I'm glad somebody (namely me) didn't get welfared to death. I have never entered on a welfare check unless it was clear something was amiss, and I have never done it based on a phone call. We do some investigating and talk to neighbors and family, etc, before we will make entry. Unfortunately, I had to do this recently to find one of our own retired guys who had passed. A person telling us their ex wouldn't answer their calls wouldn't be enough for us. It's a fine line and one of those where we're wrong either way we go, and it can lead to some ugly situations such as yours.
As for criminal charges, intent is going to be the issue. Civil would probably be the best recourse. |
|
I'm not in law enforcement, but we get called for welfare checks in both counties in which I work. We do extensive exterior investigations and check with neighbors before opening up. We generally force entry for PD or SO, and allow them to clear first, since they have a little bit of protection from projectiles. We try to limit damage, and will make the entry with as little force or destruction as we can. You wouldn't believe how many windows get left unlocked. Once we enter, it's very clear that we are public safety and not criminals. We move slowly so we don't catch anyone by suprise.
I have never found anyone home and okay on a welfare check. I've found a few dead folks, but mostly empty houses. Family and friends just simply don't know as much about the comings and goings of their loved ones as they think. Now, I have kicked or forced doors on apartment fires where the occupant was sleeping so hard they didn't hear the fire alarm or us pounding on the door. They all seem to wake up when the frame splinters, though. |