Search a house without a warrent -- legal? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Yakk · 03-29-2004, 08:34 AM

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/...83/detail.html

Text of opinion:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...29-CV0.wpd.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...-30629-cr0.pdf

From what I can tell, this means that if a police is invited into your home, they can do a 'protective sweep' of the home, checking any area where a weapon or a person could be hiding.

The invitation into the home, together wise a 'feeling of danger', was in this case considered sufficient justification to check under the bed and look in closets. Ie, the police simply asked to enter the house, which was sufficient to justify a search of the house.

This is in contrast to the old docterine (from the second PDF).

Quote:

“ Protective Sweep?
The government argues that the seizure of the checkbook was lawful because it was discovered during a protective sweep of the hotel room. A “protective sweep” is a quick and limited search of a premises, incident to an arrest
and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325, 327, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 1094, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990). The instant search
of the hotel room was not made as an incident to an
arrest and, therefore, it does not fit within the
‘protective sweep’ exception to the warrant requirement. Moreover, under the instant circumstances, the seizure of the checkbook from the wastebasket was not within the narrow ambit of a “cursory visual inspection” of a place where a person could be hiding. See Buie , 494 U.S. at 327, 110 S.Ct. at 1094.” Id . at 1035-36 (emphasis in next to last sentence added).

This extends protective sweeps to any situation where the officer percieves danger, even if they put themselves in that danger of their own consent.

So, you gain permission to enter an apartment building from the manager. While you lack permission to enter a room, you knock on the door to an apartment. While you have no warrent, you have heard that drug dealers live within the apartment.

The knocking at the door makes the apartment dangerous, which means you can do a protective sweep of the surrounding area, in any place where a weapon or person can hide.

Am I reading the ruling wrong?

filtherton · 03-29-2004, 09:11 AM

I think we can trust the discretion of police officers.

I also think i should be able to treat all red lights like yield signs. I won't abuse it, honest.

What's the point of even qualifying it based on "the perception of danger"? Don't cops always percieve that they might be in danger? I think "perception of danger" in practice will mean "whenever they goddamn please and don't you dare question it, perp."

Jesus Malverde · 03-29-2004, 09:58 PM

Yeah I read about this the other day, and it worried me a lot. I agree with filtherton, some police officers will definitely abuse this power. Hopefully other states don't catch on to this ruling and start looking towards their courts for a rule change.

Rodney · 03-29-2004, 10:52 PM

Aside from this -- which is rather scary -- I was under the impression that cops _don't_ need a search warrant if there is some clear evidence that a possible crime is being committed. It makes sense, I guess, that if a cop is standing in front of a house and a shot rings out from inside, you don't want him to wait 2 hours for a search warrant. But like everything else, this can be abused. Maybe somebody waves at the cop from a window, and he says later he went in because he felt that the guy was holding a handgun. Even though he wasn't.

Cops are there to catch the "bad guys," and they don't like little things like civil liberties which make their jobs harder and their lives more complex. Unfortunately, making a cop's life less complex could possible mean honing down your rights until there's nothing left but "Do what the man with the gun says."

kl0pper · 03-30-2004, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
I think we can trust the discretion of police officers.

why?

filtherton · 03-30-2004, 12:17 PM

The

means i'm kidding.

Paq · 03-30-2004, 06:33 PM

i hate it when stuff like this happens

Why? bc i hate using slippery slope arguments but cmon....where will it stop

and actually, i do trust police discretion about....75% of the time...then again, i'm a white, middle class, mid twenties male who is pretty clean cut, doesn't smoke, drink, do anything to excess, so i'm not exactly in sight of cops too often....

But still, i can understand that cops don't need warrants if they suspect a crime is being committed, and that's totally understandable. But ot be able to search bc they were invited in..not cool

03-29-2004, 09:58 PM	#3 (permalink)
Jesus Malverde Psycho Location: Sinaloa, Mexico	Yeah I read about this the other day, and it worried me a lot. I agree with filtherton, some police officers will definitely abuse this power. Hopefully other states don't catch on to this ruling and start looking towards their courts for a rule change. __________________ ...I'm that cat by the bar toasting to the good life...

03-30-2004, 06:33 PM	#7 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i hate it when stuff like this happens Why? bc i hate using slippery slope arguments but cmon....where will it stop and actually, i do trust police discretion about....75% of the time...then again, i'm a white, middle class, mid twenties male who is pretty clean cut, doesn't smoke, drink, do anything to excess, so i'm not exactly in sight of cops too often.... But still, i can understand that cops don't need warrants if they suspect a crime is being committed, and that's totally understandable. But ot be able to search bc they were invited in..not cool __________________ Live. Chris

03-29-2004, 09:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think we can trust the discretion of police officers. I also think i should be able to treat all red lights like yield signs. I won't abuse it, honest. What's the point of even qualifying it based on "the perception of danger"? Don't cops always percieve that they might be in danger? I think "perception of danger" in practice will mean "whenever they goddamn please and don't you dare question it, perp."

03-29-2004, 10:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	Aside from this -- which is rather scary -- I was under the impression that cops _don't_ need a search warrant if there is some clear evidence that a possible crime is being committed. It makes sense, I guess, that if a cop is standing in front of a house and a shot rings out from inside, you don't want him to wait 2 hours for a search warrant. But like everything else, this can be abused. Maybe somebody waves at the cop from a window, and he says later he went in because he felt that the guy was holding a handgun. Even though he wasn't. Cops are there to catch the "bad guys," and they don't like little things like civil liberties which make their jobs harder and their lives more complex. Unfortunately, making a cop's life less complex could possible mean honing down your rights until there's nothing left but "Do what the man with the gun says."

03-30-2004, 12:17 PM	#6 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	The means i'm kidding.