• 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.

Is Probable Cause at Risk? Is this a win or a setback?

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
True.

Had they not heard the glass breaking, all the pounding and demanding would not have warranted entry.

Once they heard the glass breaking, it became reasonable for them to believe, with the context of the 911 call, that an actual physical fight was going on and that someone was in danger. Exigent circumstances; break down the door.

This is how cops should behave. When they reasonably believe that someone is in danger, they step in, through closed doors, if necessary.

Again, though, the point of the dissent, and my point, remains that the defendant had no duty in assisting the cops in their effort that was based on their mistaken, but reasonable, belief.
20 minutes later AFTER chatting thru the door with residents & being assured occupants were safe AND they needed a warrant; the three LEs called the FD to assist in getting in the living quarters above the laundry business.

According to the record, male partner broke a window earlier in the evening and promised to clean up the mess, but instead went and played pool, getting back o/a 0130 where the ‘discussion’ broke out. To preclude waking their six yo, they moved to their outside balcony where a random passerby heard the discussion and dropped a dime.

Male then ‘inadvertently’ locked patio door which is what the nice LEs heard upon their arrival.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Um...the glass breaking is what finished creating the exigent circumstances, that resulted in the police demanding and forcing entry, so it is not some unimportant minor detail.

So, cut and paste my words. Have at it. Unless you edit my words, all will find me mentioning the breaking glass in post after post after post after post...

Absent the breaking of the glass, entry by the officers would have been wrong and, IMO, unlawful.
Never said you didn't mention the glass.
I said I didn't mention it. But it doesn't matter. They should not have been there 15 min after determining verbally all were OK.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
Oh btw...seems there might be an alternatives to this ruse..at the bottom of the newspeek copyrighted article...

One of the largest incursions in the state is Seattle’s Rental Registration & Inspection Ordinance (RRIO), which aims to inspect the city’s entire rental housing stock—over 152,000 rental units as of December 2018. Under the RRIO, landlords can only rent out property if they’re registered with the city, while those properties can only be registered after they have been inspected.

In order to conduct their extensive inspections (the checklist alone runs 12-pages long), rental inspectors can strongarm their way inside without a warrant or the tenant’s consent. Given the program’s scale, thousands of residents have been or will be threatened by warrantless searches. Worse, residents who wish to preserve their privacy can face fines of up to $500 per day for every day the rental inspectors are denied entry.

Not saying a word but seems quite coincidental, me thinks
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The following appears under the heading, “The Facts”, in the court ruling:

Using amplification and much profanity, the officers insisted they would break down the door if they were not let in. McLemore told them to leave. After several minutes of this, police heard the sound of breaking glass.
The article said 15 minutes. Someone else said 20 minutes. Some have implied that the officers were just standing around for those who-knows-how-many minutes.

According to “The Facts”, the officers were demanding entry the whole time, and forcibly entered upon hearing the sound of breaking glass.

Just throwing out the facts.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
The following appears under the heading, “The Facts”, in the court ruling:



The article said 15 minutes. Someone else said 20 minutes. Some have implied that the officers were just standing around for those who-knows-how-many minutes.

According to “The Facts”, the officers were demanding entry the whole time, and forcibly entered upon hearing the sound of breaking glass.

Just throwing out the facts.
Which they had no authority to do once husband and wife both verbally established they were safe.

At that time the officers were trespassers.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
And that is your opinion, one with which I disagree.

I was just presenting facts to counter some misstatements of the facts.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,381
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I said no such thing.

There you go putting words in my mouth.

The rational way to express a lack of understanding of what I wrote is: “Are you saying that the defendant has a duty to self-confess?” To which I would have replied, “No. I am merely stating the facts of the case. The defendant DID state that glass was broken, and offered his explanation of how the glass was broken.”

However, this distraction aside, I will restate my position: The glass breaking combined with the 911 call did give the officers reason to believe that someone was in danger in the apartment. They were right to demand the door be opened. The defendant was within his Rights not to open the door. The cops were right to break the door down. The defendant had no moral duty to open the door, and therefore should not be guilty of obstruction.
Your own words above. The defendant SELF CONFESSED. The defendant turned allegations into FACTS by SELF CONFESSING.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
You accused me of saying that the defendant had a duty to self-confess. I said no such thing.

After I corrected you once on what I did not say, your trying to justify your accusation by slightly adjusting your incorrect accusation becomes flat-out dishonesty. You are deliberately creating a false impression of what I have said. That is lying and makes you a liar.

Feel free to try to justify your lie again. I will participate in honest, rational discussions with others.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
And that is your opinion, one with which I disagree.

I was just presenting facts to counter some misstatements of the facts.
It's a bit more than opinion.

Once I had responded to a call for service, this a domestic call, determined all parties are safe, I had no authority to remain on private property and longer. Nor demand entry . I might have spent a min or two trying to convince the occupants to come outside onto public property where I did have authority. But not more than that.
That call is over at that point and I had no authority to remain nor demand squat.

This guys lawyer needs to go back to school.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It's a bit more than opinion.

Once I had responded to a call for service, this a domestic call, determined all parties are safe, I had no authority to remain on private property and longer. Nor demand entry . I might have spent a min or two trying to convince the occupants to come outside onto public property where I did have authority. But not more than that.
That call is over at that point and I had no authority to remain nor demand squat.

This guys lawyer needs to go back to school.
It would also be your opinion that the officers “determined that all parties are safe”. Nothing I read in that account indicated that the officers had made any such a determination before demanding entry. According to the facts of the case, the breaking down of the door immediately followed several minutes of banging and demanding entry and upon hearing the glass breaking.

I think you are assuming that the officers should have arrived at that determination, and are therefore saying that they did. That would be an opinion.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
It would also be your opinion that the officers “determined that all parties are safe”. Nothing I read in that account indicated that the officers had made any such a determination before demanding entry. According to the facts of the case, the breaking down of the door immediately followed several minutes of banging and demanding entry and upon hearing the glass breaking.

I think you are assuming that the officers should have arrived at that determination, and are therefore saying that they did. That would be an opinion.
Both parties verbally told officers they were OK. Officers authority to do one more knock ended then.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Both parties verbally told officers they were OK. Officers authority to do one more knock ended then.
That is not the officers “determin[ing] that all parties are safe”. You believe that the officers should have come to that conclusion. That does not mean that the officers did, or that other reasonable persons would make that determination.

That is how this all becomes opinions—with which others can rationally disagree.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
That is not the officers “determin[ing] that all parties are safe”. You believe that the officers should have come to that conclusion. That does not mean that the officers did, or that other reasonable persons would make that determination.

That is how this all becomes opinions—with which others can rationally disagree.
Disagree all you want.

It wasn't my opinion, it was my dept SOP and the law.

Your disagreeing is your choice of course, but you would be wrong.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Disagree all you want.

It wasn't my opinion, it was my dept SOP and the law.

Your disagreeing is your choice of course, but you would be wrong.
I am not disagreeing with anyone’s SOP or with any law.

I am disagreeing with your conclusions, with your opinions.

A subtle difference, but a graspable one, for one who would grasp. I won’t bother making the point further.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
I am not disagreeing with anyone’s SOP or with any law.

I am disagreeing with your conclusions, with your opinions.

A subtle difference, but a graspable one, for one who would grasp. I won’t bother making the point further.
OK.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
I am not disagreeing with anyone’s SOP or with any law.

I am disagreeing with your conclusions, with your opinions.

A subtle difference, but a graspable one, for one who would grasp. I won’t bother making the point further.
Thank you...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The following appears under the heading, “The Facts”, in the court ruling:



The article said 15 minutes. Someone else said 20 minutes. Some have implied that the officers were just standing around for those who-knows-how-many minutes.

According to “The Facts”, the officers were demanding entry the whole time, and forcibly entered upon hearing the sound of breaking glass.

Just throwing out the facts.
I will, however, continue to discuss the facts and other relevant things.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,773
Location
here nc
I am not disagreeing with anyone’s SOP or with any law.

I am disagreeing with your conclusions, with your opinions.

A subtle difference, but a graspable one, for one who would grasp. I won’t bother making the point further.
I will, however, continue to discuss the facts and other relevant things.
First eye95, you need to discern commonality of the facts are from..copyrighted newspeek, ACLU brief, WASC document?

Pick one or don’t bother making the point further...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,381
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
The following situations have been found to be sufficiently exigent to render a warrantless search of a domicile reasonable: (1) hot-pursuit, (2) to thwart escape, (3) to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, (4) in response to an immediate risk of serious harm to the police officers or others, and (5) to render emergency aid to an injured person or to protect a person from imminent injury. See Brigham City, Utah, 547 U.S. at 403; Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100 (1990)

Some states and the federal courts use a three-prong test: (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. (3) There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched.

A police officer's "objectively reasonable belief" that a person might be in need of immediate aid or assistance will justify a warrantless entry. The officers did not meet the above criteria to enter that apartment. The defendant’s attorney sold their client down the river.
 
Top