• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OC@Home

D

deforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
38
Location
, California, USA
imported post

cato wrote:
Having an alarm co., contracted to act on your behalf,call the police for "help" is enoughof a reason to force entry to insure there is no threat to the lives of the occupants (an exigent circumstance, ie: exemption to the 4th A).

Same with a 911 call/hang up.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

FogRider wrote:
To the No Disarming/No ID folks: Is it really that unreasonable for the officers responding to an alarm to not simply trust the armed guy that answers the door when he says he is the homeowner?
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Bottom line: there will be situations where it is reasonbale for the police/deputy to disarm you. I don't think that contradicts the general idea behind the 2A.

After discussing this in this thread and listening to the opinions of those who replied, I have chosen to resolve this situation by keeping my wallet on my nightstand and, in the future, I will put it in my shorts when I strap on my holster.

Note that the deputies asked first to see my id before asking me to remove my holster. If I could have pulled out my id and shown it to them I'm 99% confident they would not have asked me to disarm.

Overall, I find no fault in the way the deputies handled the situation and only intend that one minor change to my own home policies.
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

FogRider wrote:
To the No Disarming/No ID folks: Is it really that unreasonable for the officers responding to an alarm to not simply trust the armed guy that answers the door when he says he is the homeowner?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it is unreasonable. If I was a police officer responding to an alarm call, I'd ask to see ID too. Although, I don't think I would have any recourse if the person answering the door said everything was fine and he appreciated me checking on his safety and closed the door (of course, if Cato has a citation I'd feel differently).
 
F

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
I wouldn't say it is unreasonable. If I was a police officer responding to an alarm call, I'd ask to see ID too. Although, I don't think I would have any recourse if the person answering the door said everything was fine and he appreciated me checking on his safety and closed the door (of course, if Cato has a citation I'd feel differently).
Click to expand...
Wouldn't responding to an alarm and having an armed man telling you everything is fine, thankyouofficerhaveaniceday and closing the door be RAS to enter?
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

FogRider wrote:
To the No Disarming/No ID folks: Is it really that unreasonable for the officers responding to an alarm to not simply trust the armed guy that answers the door when he says he is the homeowner?
Click to expand...
I would hope they don't let that be the extent of their investigation.

I believe Cato is right (citation or not - see Terry v Ohio where RAS is described). The officers could articulate that they reasonably believe that a crime may have occurred. I think it is also reasonable to investigate that crime.

However, I don't see why disarming the person would be necessary. Simply identifying the resident should be enough. At that point, I do not believe further suspicion would be reasonable, unless the officer could articulate facts that lead them to suspect there is something else going on.

"Here's my ID officer. As you can see, I do in fact live here. I'll contact my alarm company first thing in the morning to make sure they fix the problem with my system."
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

FogRider wrote:
Wouldn't responding to an alarm and having an armed man telling you everything is fine, thankyouofficerhaveaniceday and closing the door be RAS to enter?
Click to expand...
Remember, RAS means "reasonable articulative suspicion"; that is, the officers have to be able to articulate facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe the suspicion is reasonable.

The fact the person is armed has no bearing on anything, as being armed is not any indication of criminal activity. (Unless the 9-1-1 call included a description of a firearm used in a crime, and the firearm matches the description.)

However, I do believe the above circumstances could warrant further investigation - REGARDLESS of if the person closing the door is armed or not.
 
D

deforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
38
Location
, California, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
FogRider wrote:
To the No Disarming/No ID folks: Is it really that unreasonable for the officers responding to an alarm to not simply trust the armed guy that answers the door when he says he is the homeowner?
Click to expand...
I would hope they don't let that be the extent of their investigation.

I believe Cato is right (citation or not - see Terry v Ohio where RAS is described). The officers could articulate that they reasonably believe that a crime may have occurred. I think it is also reasonable to investigate that crime.

However, I don't see why disarming the person would be necessary. Simply identifying the resident should be enough. At that point, I do not believe further suspicion would be reasonable, unless the officer could articulate facts that lead them to suspect there is something else going on.

"Here's my ID officer. As you can see, I do in fact live here. I'll contact my alarm company first thing in the morning to make sure they fix the problem with my system."
Click to expand...
In the original situation I didn't have my id with me. I believe, based on how they handled the call, that if I had had my id with me when I answered the door they would not have disarmed me. They only asked me to remove my holster after I told them that my id was back in my bedroom.

So their actions were reasonable and I can avoid being disarmed in the future simply by making a point to pick up my wallet with my hoslter.

CA_Libertarian wrote:
FogRider wrote:
Wouldn't responding to an alarm and having an armed man telling you everything is fine, thankyouofficerhaveaniceday and closing the door be RAS to enter?
Click to expand...
Remember, RAS means "reasonable articulative suspicion"; that is, the officers have to be able to articulate facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe the suspicion is reasonable.

The fact the person is armed has no bearing on anything, as being armed is not any indication of criminal activity. (Unless the 9-1-1 call included a description of a firearm used in a crime, and the firearm matches the description.)

However, I do believe the above circumstances could warrant further investigation - REGARDLESS of if the person closing the door is armed or not.
Click to expand...
This is, I think,a correct summary and they never said anything to sugget that my being armed was, in and of itself, a problem even after I told them that my handgun was loaded (meaning not just magazine in the grip but round in the chamber).
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
imported post

deforcer wrote:
Unbeknownst to me, our house alarm malfunctioned one nightand sent a silent alarm to the alarm company. I later learned that they did call the house first, as perpolicy, and someone drowsily picked up the phone and hung up on them. So, of course, they called the sheriff.


Another family member had beat me to the door (I had words with him later) and so as I turned the corner I saw the open door and the deputies standing there. .
Click to expand...
these are things going wrong in "your house" that cant be allowed to be repeated, lay down the law!, or you have no security!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top