House to house searches during crises and immunity to minor crimes

[repoman]

So, when there are terrorist events that happen with the suspects on the loose in a residential neighborhood should their be a policy of not arresting or charging/fining people for misdemeanor infraction or even things up to running meth labs? Although perhaps confiscation of equipment in that case is ok.

One thing is that if the cops are charging people for minor crimes then they are tying up resources and delaying the capture of the people on the loose.

Apparently, the third suspect in the San Bernadino attack had a misdemeanor warrant and was arrested for that. I think it is kind of bullshit and people will not want to cooperate in these emergencies anymore.

I think that immigration status is one of the few exceptions where the police (or ICE) will not take advantage of arresting them if a crisis let's police check IDs or residences.

 

[JonA]

So, when there are terrorist events that happen with the suspects on the loose in a residential neighborhood should their be a policy of not arresting or charging/fining people for misdemeanor infraction or even things up to running meth labs? Although perhaps confiscation of equipment in that case is ok.

One thing is that if the cops are charging people for minor crimes then they are tying up resources and delaying the capture of the people on the loose.

Apparently, the third suspect in the San Bernadino attack had a misdemeanor warrant and was arrested for that. I think it is kind of bullshit and people will not want to cooperate in these emergencies anymore.

I think that immigration status is one of the few exceptions where the police (or ICE) will not take advantage of arresting them if a crisis let's police check IDs or residences.

More than that the police should not be allowed to use single events to justify blanket searches.

If you're looking for terrorists, look for terrorists. If you find something else, too bad.

 

[repoman]

Well, after the Boston Bombing the house to house searches met the standard IMO, but the threshold should not be lower than that. I was opposed to the massive overkill of military type vehicles used as a show of force at the time.

I don't know if people were charged for minor crimes due to the police searches and I am not sure how to look for that. Obviously, if they found a rape dungeon then charge the guy and rescue the captives.

 

[Bronzeage]

We pay the police to maintain public safety and an armed spree killer is a substantial threat to that safety. It's not a judgment call.

If police have to intrude on private property to ensure the killer is apprehended, it's their duty to do so. If evidence of some unrelated crime is discovered in the search, that evidence cannot be brought to court. Case law is pretty clear on that.

A person is not evidence. If a person is found to have prior warrants, that's not the same as finding a bag of weed on someone's bedroom dresser.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We pay the police to maintain public safety and an armed spree killer is a substantial threat to that safety. It's not a judgment call.

If police have to intrude on private property to ensure the killer is apprehended, it's their duty to do so. If evidence of some unrelated crime is discovered in the search, that evidence cannot be brought to court. Case law is pretty clear on that.

A person is not evidence. If a person is found to have prior warrants, that's not the same as finding a bag of weed on someone's bedroom dresser.

Is that actually the case or is it like stopping people to check for drunk drivers and then the cops check for other evidence of a crime while the car is there?

If they're looking for terrorists in someone's basement and they find a meth lab, they're not going to ignore the meth lab.

 

[Bronzeage]

We pay the police to maintain public safety and an armed spree killer is a substantial threat to that safety. It's not a judgment call.

If police have to intrude on private property to ensure the killer is apprehended, it's their duty to do so. If evidence of some unrelated crime is discovered in the search, that evidence cannot be brought to court. Case law is pretty clear on that.

A person is not evidence. If a person is found to have prior warrants, that's not the same as finding a bag of weed on someone's bedroom dresser.

Is that actually the case or is it like stopping people to check for drunk drivers and then the cops check for other evidence of a crime while the car is there?

If they're looking for terrorists in someone's basement and they find a meth lab, they're not going to ignore the meth lab.

No, they won't let the meth lab continue to operate unmolested, but taking the case to court is another thing.

There has been so much contention over police searches in the past 60 years, a lot of rulings have been made on the matter. If a policeman enters a building in pursuit of a fugitive, any criminal evidence he discovers, which is unrelated to the fugitive, may not be used in court. It can be confiscated if it is illegal material.

As for the drunk driver and a search of his car, the police have a dozen ways around that problem. The first thing they do is ask for permission to search. This is kind of a trick question. A refusal could be seen as acting suspicious, which can be grounds for a search. I've seen plenty of reality cop shows where the person consents to a search, which always finds some kind of illegal drugs. Drunk people don't always make the best decisions.

A friend of mine pushed this to the limit. He took a road trip across the state line, where the taxes on alcoholic beverages was much lower. People did this all the time, but he had 15 cases of beer in the trunk of his car when he was stopped for speeding. This was enough beer to be considered wholesale transaction, which could lead to a citation for tax evasion and confiscation of the beer.

The state trooper asked for permission to look in the trunk. My friend refused and said, "There are items of a personal nature in the trunk and I would be embarrassed if you saw them." Now the trooper had to make a decision. He could have tried to get a search warrant, but all he had as probable cause was a white boy caught speeding in a Camaro and this bizarre statement.

He wrote the ticket and let him go.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No warrant, the search is illegal. They have to ignore the meth lab.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is that actually the case or is it like stopping people to check for drunk drivers and then the cops check for other evidence of a crime while the car is there?

If they're looking for terrorists in someone's basement and they find a meth lab, they're not going to ignore the meth lab.

No, they won't let the meth lab continue to operate unmolested, but taking the case to court is another thing.

There has been so much contention over police searches in the past 60 years, a lot of rulings have been made on the matter. If a policeman enters a building in pursuit of a fugitive, any criminal evidence he discovers, which is unrelated to the fugitive, may not be used in court. It can be confiscated if it is illegal material.

As for the drunk driver and a search of his car, the police have a dozen ways around that problem. The first thing they do is ask for permission to search. This is kind of a trick question. A refusal could be seen as acting suspicious, which can be grounds for a search. I've seen plenty of reality cop shows where the person consents to a search, which always finds some kind of illegal drugs. Drunk people don't always make the best decisions.

A friend of mine pushed this to the limit. He took a road trip across the state line, where the taxes on alcoholic beverages was much lower. People did this all the time, but he had 15 cases of beer in the trunk of his car when he was stopped for speeding. This was enough beer to be considered wholesale transaction, which could lead to a citation for tax evasion and confiscation of the beer.

The state trooper asked for permission to look in the trunk. My friend refused and said, "There are items of a personal nature in the trunk and I would be embarrassed if you saw them." Now the trooper had to make a decision. He could have tried to get a search warrant, but all he had as probable cause was a white boy caught speeding in a Camaro and this bizarre statement.

He wrote the ticket and let him go.

How would terrorist searches be any different? "We're looking for terrorists. May we search your home?". If you say no during an active manhunt, that raises the red flags against you and they get an emergency warrant to bust down your door and then "Oh look, it's a meth lab". It's not like they're running after the terrorists and he happens to duck into a house with a meth lab while being chased.

 

[Metaphor]

No warrant, the search is illegal. They have to ignore the meth lab.

There's an exception to requiring a warrant:

Under the Fourth Amendment, homeowners have the right to refuse a request for a search if the police don't have a warrant. But that rule has an exception. If there are exigent circumstances, like the threat of imminent danger, a warrant isn't necessarily needed, but the police must still have probable cause.

 

[Bronzeage]

No, they won't let the meth lab continue to operate unmolested, but taking the case to court is another thing.

There has been so much contention over police searches in the past 60 years, a lot of rulings have been made on the matter. If a policeman enters a building in pursuit of a fugitive, any criminal evidence he discovers, which is unrelated to the fugitive, may not be used in court. It can be confiscated if it is illegal material.

As for the drunk driver and a search of his car, the police have a dozen ways around that problem. The first thing they do is ask for permission to search. This is kind of a trick question. A refusal could be seen as acting suspicious, which can be grounds for a search. I've seen plenty of reality cop shows where the person consents to a search, which always finds some kind of illegal drugs. Drunk people don't always make the best decisions.

A friend of mine pushed this to the limit. He took a road trip across the state line, where the taxes on alcoholic beverages was much lower. People did this all the time, but he had 15 cases of beer in the trunk of his car when he was stopped for speeding. This was enough beer to be considered wholesale transaction, which could lead to a citation for tax evasion and confiscation of the beer.

The state trooper asked for permission to look in the trunk. My friend refused and said, "There are items of a personal nature in the trunk and I would be embarrassed if you saw them." Now the trooper had to make a decision. He could have tried to get a search warrant, but all he had as probable cause was a white boy caught speeding in a Camaro and this bizarre statement.

He wrote the ticket and let him go.

How would terrorist searches be any different? "We're looking for terrorists. May we search your home?". If you say no during an active manhunt, that raises the red flags against you and they get an emergency warrant to bust down your door and then "Oh look, it's a meth lab". It's not like they're running after the terrorists and he happens to duck into a house with a meth lab while being chased.

It's complicated. The owner or resident may not be available to give consent. The owner's family maybe hostages. There are all things to consider.

The standards for these things are always vague. What constitutes "an imminent threat"? This situation gives the police extraordinary powers, so extraordinary restrictions are placed on them.

Police tend to be goal oriented. It's not hard to imagine a policeman enticing a known petty criminal to break into an house. The police respond to a burglary in progress, hoping to discover a meth lab. The burglar is released because in the confusion, he was questioned before being informed of his rights.

That scenario has been used on several police TV shows, so it wouldn't take a lot of imagination on their part. It would be an open ended permit to look around inside anyone's house.

 

[Metaphor]

No warrant, the search is illegal. They have to ignore the meth lab.

Would they ignore a rape dungeon too?

 

[fromderinside]

'They' would probably note and decommission (bull in china shop technique) both if it were convenient to the primary reason for search. It would be up to the aggrieved party to make claim.

 

[Bronzeage]

No warrant, the search is illegal. They have to ignore the meth lab.

Would they ignore a rape dungeon too?

If there are currently prisoners in the dungeon, it's a different matter altogether. A witness is not evidence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No warrant, the search is illegal. They have to ignore the meth lab.

Would they ignore a rape dungeon too?

How do you tell the difference between a rape dungeon and a consensual S&M dungeon?

 

[barbos]

No warrant, the search is illegal. They have to ignore the meth lab.

What if they see meth lab, ignore it, then get the warrant based on what they saw?

- - - Updated - - -

No warrant, the search is illegal. They have to ignore the meth lab.

Would they ignore a rape dungeon too?

Would they ignore decomposing human body?

 

[ZiprHead]

No warrant, the search is illegal. They have to ignore the meth lab.

I highly doubt that. They cannot arrest you but they certainly can seize your meth lab. Humans have rights, your illegal meth lab doesn't,

 

[Bronzeage]

Would they ignore a rape dungeon too?

How do you tell the difference between a rape dungeon and a consensual S&M dungeon?

The guy chained to the wall asks for help.