• 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?

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,417
Location
White Oak Plantation
Occupants informed the cops that all was good. That is the crux of this case in my view. Assuming duress creates the slippery slope. I will not argue exigent circumstances. I think that that "law" is just as unconstitutional as the Terry decision and QI. Never agree with the state, compel the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The perp agreed with the justification...:oops:
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, 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.
Your first two paragraphs are a top-notch, informative summary.

Your third paragraph is a reasonable conclusion. My conclusion—and the conclusion of both opinions of the 4-4 decision were opposite to yours on this point. We all believe that the officers had reason to enter after having heard the glass breaking. The point on which the two non-majorities disagree was whether the defendant had a duty to open the door. I agree with the judges who said he did not.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Occupants informed the cops that all was good. That is the crux of this case in my view. Assuming duress creates the slippery slope. I will not argue exigent circumstances. I think that that "law" is just as unconstitutional as the Terry decision and QI. Never agree with the state, compel the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The perp agreed with the justification...:oops:
And the 911 call, combined with the officers actually hearing some of the argument, gave them reason to believe that all was not good.

People, especially those who are doing wrong, lie to the cops. If the cops were required to believe what possible wrong-doers and their possible accompanying victims say, despite what other observations tell them, then they would have to let the guy go who was wearing the striped shirt and a mask, carrying bags with dollar signs on it, with a teller in tow, because he said that he wasn’t the bank robber and the teller said that everything was OK.

Again, there was actually only one issue on which the two sides of the case disagreed: Did the defendant have a duty to open the door? I say that he did not.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,778
Location
here nc
Your first two paragraphs are a top-notch, informative summary.

Your third paragraph is a reasonable conclusion. My conclusion—and the conclusion of both opinions of the 4-4 decision were opposite to yours on this point. We all believe that the officers had reason to enter after having heard the glass breaking. The point on which the two non-majorities disagree was whether the defendant had a duty to open the door. I agree with the judges who said he did not.
Eye95, your royal use of WE is dishonest and misleadingly incorrect!

WE ALL” do NOT believe the LEs had a reason to enter ~ period.

In the future please refrain from making improper and misleading generalizations which would lead readers that you have consensus and permission to and are speaking for everyone in the discussion.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Work on your reading skills.

The “we all” clearly refers to the 8 judges and me.

I suggest you look up the word “antecedent” in a dictionary.

But, hey, your goal is to troll, not to add to the discussion. So why would you bother with accuracy?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,778
Location
here nc
And the 911 call, combined with the officers actually hearing some of the argument, gave them reason to believe that all was not good.

People, especially those who are doing wrong, lie to the cops. If the cops were required to believe what possible wrong-doers and their possible accompanying victims say, despite what other observations tell them, then they would have to let the guy go who was wearing the striped shirt and a mask, carrying bags with dollar signs on it, with a teller in tow, because he said that he wasn’t the bank robber and the teller said that everything was OK.

Again, there was actually only one issue on which the two sides of the case disagreed: Did the defendant have a duty to open the door? I say that he did not.
Sorry, eye95 there are numerous storylines from reality’s naked city[ies] where the LE’s are the ones doing wrong as well as been, with impunity, lie to citizens!

You are correct in one aspect, but incorrect on the issue ~ one aspect is the defendant had horrible legal representation, period!
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,778
Location
here nc
Work on your reading skills.

The “we all” clearly refers to the 8 judges and me.

I suggest you look up the word “antecedent” in a dictionary.

But, hey, your goal is to troll, not to add to the discussion. So why would you bother with accuracy?
There is the petulant childish playground name calling you are infamous for eye95, now how did Queen Victoria word it, “WE ARE NOT AMUSED”

PS In grammar, an antecedent is an expression (word, phrase, clause, etc.) that gives its meaning to a pro-form (pronoun, pro-verb, pro-adverb, etc.). A proform takes its meaning from its antecedent, e.g. Susan arrived late because traffic held her up. The noun her refers to and takes its meaning from Susan, so Susan is the antecedent of her.

Ya, that definition help eye95 but lookie here at this definition sport...

WE; used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.

Darn glad i got me language skills down pat for this hear country huh mate!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
And the troll continues to demonstrate his ignorance and/or his desire to antagonize rather than to add to the discussion.

I will not aid him further in the disruption of this thread. I have made my point about the inanity and the antagonism of his trolling posts, so I will leave him to his own childish devices for a while again.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,383
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Work on your reading skills.

The “we all” clearly refers to the 8 judges and me.

I suggest you look up the word “antecedent” in a dictionary.

But, hey, your goal is to troll, not to add to the discussion. So why would you bother with accuracy?
Here you go again. You cannot write a clear sentence. Writing the way you do would get you destroyed in court. "Who Do You Mean We Kemo Sabe?"

Even though I'm retired, I still proof-read motions and legal brief three to four times a week. The two major questions I'm constantly asking is "to whom are you speaking" and "what the hell are you trying to say."

I constantly tell attorneys that if I must go back three or four paragraph to figure out what you are trying to say then you lost the readers (judges) attention. Not good.

You trying to justify your poor writing skills is what gets you into these messes. I'm telling you this for your own good. If you don't want to be pounded on work on your writing skills.





 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Your first two paragraphs are a top-notch, informative summary.

Your third paragraph is a reasonable conclusion. My conclusion—and the conclusion of both opinions of the 4-4 decision were opposite to yours on this point. We all believe that the officers had reason to enter after having heard the glass breaking. The point on which the two non-majorities disagree was whether the defendant had a duty to open the door. I agree with the judges who said he did not.
The judges are covering the cops as usual while trying to straddle the constitutional fence.

If the owner had no legal obligation to open the door the cops had insufficient grounds to enter.

Can't be both ways. If the cops forcible entry was legal then the owner had an obligation to open the door.

Judges say he didn't, therefore the police had no grounds to enter.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
And the other troll* weighs in. Why the jerk troll defends the inane troll, I’ll never know. However, I will stop participating in the jerk trolls efforts to derail this thread.

Anyone care to discuss on-topic?
_

*Edited to clarify. There was an intervening post. I am referring to the post above the post above this one.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The judges are covering the cops as usual while trying to straddle the constitutional fence.

If the owner had no legal obligation to open the door the cops had insufficient grounds to enter.

Can't be both ways. If the cops forcible entry was legal then the owner had an obligation to open the door.

Judges say he didn't, therefore the police had no grounds to enter.
Your third sentence is not logically true. That someone else has authority to do something does not automatically assign a duty to another to help him.

Thanks for the on-topic reply.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Your third sentence is not logically true. That someone else has authority to do something does not automatically assign a duty to another to help him.

Thanks for the on-topic reply.
YW

But. Yes it is logically and legally true.

If an officer has legal grounds to demand entry into a residence, then the occupant has a legal duty to allow the entry or he is obstructing the officer.

If however the officer has no legal grounds to enter the resident had every right to resist that entry.

It's one way or the other. I personally know how it is because I've had to be involved in such things.
The cops had no grounds to enter and should not have remained there. They acted out of pure petulance at being told no, indicated by the instant and illegal arrest of the person who told them no.
The judges ARE covering the cops and FD backside while trying keep their decision from being overturned by straddling the fence.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,383
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
And the other troll* weighs in. Why the jerk troll defends the inane troll, I’ll never know. However, I will stop participating in the jerk trolls efforts to derail this thread.

Anyone care to discuss on-topic?
_

*Edited to clarify. There was an intervening post. I am referring to the post above the post above this one.
Here you go.... you are trying to clarify your clarifying. Stop blaming others for your short-comings.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
YW

But. Yes it is logically and legally true.

If an officer has legal grounds to demand entry into a residence, then the occupant has a legal duty to allow the entry or he is obstructing the officer.

If however the officer has no legal grounds to enter the resident had every right to resist that entry.

It's one way or the other. I personally know how it is because I've had to be involved in such things.
The cops had no grounds to enter and should not have remained there. They acted out of pure petulance at being told no, indicated by the instant and illegal arrest of the person who told them no.
The judges ARE covering the cops and FD backside while trying keep their decision from being overturned by straddling the fence.
That argument is inherently flawed. While I agree that it is generally wise to comply with errant officer commands, it cannot always required by law. Two different views from the law should be applied: What are the officers allowed to do? And, what is the citizen required to do?

While the officers were wrong—and the facts in court established that they were wrong—they reasonably believed that they were right. The defendant had more facts at hand and knew that they were wrong. So, while, if he actively thwarted the cops, that would likely be obstruction, he reasonably has no duty to aid them in making what he knows is a mistake.

While, IMO, it was unwise not to open the door, why would the defendant not have the Right to just stay out of the way of potential danger, and let the errant cops dig their own hole.

It amazes me how that so often on OCDO non-compliance with errant police commands is encouraged, but in a case where it helps the argument at hand, compliance becomes required.

I recommend compliance. I believe that you will fare better in the after-action. However, that does not mean that compliance is or should be required by law.

Again, thank you for demonstrating rational disagreement.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,778
Location
here nc
And the other troll* weighs in. Why the jerk troll defends the inane troll, I’ll never know. However, I will stop participating in the jerk trolls efforts to derail this thread.

Anyone care to discuss on-topic?
_

*Edited to clarify. There was an intervening post. I am referring to the post above the post above this one.
Nice eye95...
Derail the thread...sorry eye95 but ghost1958, CoL, myself, and other members have pointed out, while on topic that your stance is inconsistent with 'the facts.'

Alas, eye95 you are the only one who, while referring to the post above the post above this one is off topic.

so CoL, er Ghost1958, are you the "jerk" or the "inane" troll referred to by the petulant child hurling playground names?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,383
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
"The officers reasonably believed." What is that? Blacks law 5th. - Reasonable belief. "Reasonable belief" or "probable
cause" to make an arrest without a warrant exists when facts and circumstances within arresting officer's knowledge, and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to justify a man of average caution in belief that a felony has been or is being committed.

Reasonableness is a fact issue, not a matter of law issue. Law may define reasonable, but a jury decides if the information presented meets their belief and understanding of reasonableness. Without saying it, jury nullification.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,778
Location
here nc
That argument is inherently flawed. While I agree that it is generally wise to comply with errant officer commands, it cannot always required by law. Two different views from the law should be applied: What are the officers allowed to do? And, what is the citizen required to do?

While the officers were wrong—and the facts in court established that they were wrong—they reasonably believed that they were right. The defendant had more facts at hand and knew that they were wrong. So, while, if he actively thwarted the cops, that would likely be obstruction, he reasonably has no duty to aid them in making what he knows is a mistake.

While, IMO, it was unwise not to open the door, why would the defendant not have the Right to just stay out of the way of potential danger, and let the errant cops dig their own hole.

It amazes me how that so often on OCDO non-compliance with errant police commands is encouraged, but in a case where it helps the argument at hand, compliance becomes required.

I recommend compliance. I believe that you will fare better in the after-action. However, that does not mean that compliance is or should be required by law.

Again, thank you for demonstrating rational disagreement.
really, eye95 you just stated the court established the LE's wrong...should be end of the court proceedings wouldn't you say?

Further eye95, you state the Defendant 'knew they [LEs] were wrong' so your perspective is he thwarted the LEs and therefore committed the crime as charged ~ obstruction?

Defendant's compliance, per your statement knew the LEs were wrong then you want him to circumvent his 4th amendment rights.

so this is the stance you have switched to eye95...defendant relinquishes his 4th amendment rights, oh and is guilty as charged of 'obstruction'

nice
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,417
Location
White Oak Plantation
I recommend compliance outside the home (castle). Without a warrant, entry was not authorized. Their reliance on exigent circumstances is their "stay outta jail card" and they played it. The perp let them play it and the judge(s) let the cops play it. The perps lawyer should be disbarred for his nitwittery.

I arbitrarily reject every cop's story, unless/until multiple irrefutable facts (video/audio) corroborate his story. Multiple cops repeating the same story is not corroboration.

If I were to introduce my eye witness account of a cop violating the law, I am rebuked by the courts, if I get to a court that is. Prosecutors will not easily be convinced to prosecute a cop for low level crimes as we are in the general population. My eyewitness account is not as well received as a cop's eyewitness account.

Heck, a cop don't need to see nuthin, the cop thinking he heard sumptin is goodnuff to subject the serfs to violence from state employed actors. the WaWa Supremes did those folks in WaWa no favors with their non-binding decree.
 
Top