chocolatemalt
New Member
It all comes down to the report of gunshots leading to probable cause to search the premises, no? I wonder what TX case precedent looks like -- seems like it would be happening quite a bit.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Titanium Gear Industries (domestic source)
- Thread starter TitaniumGear (TGI)
- Start date
It all comes down to the report of gunshots leading to probable cause to search the premises, no? I wonder what TX case precedent looks like -- seems like it would be happening quite a bit.
Horimono
Well-known Member
Yeah, that would apparently be the justification they are claiming to enter the residence. Although, @Millard Baker posted once they “found the lab” they obtained a search warrant to continue their search and to seize what they found. That part they did correctly. Once they found something that required a more thorough search, they legally can’t continue to search because that’s not WHY they were in the residence. Search warrants have to specify what is being searched and what they expect to find.
Previous case law would dictate what they could and couldn’t do in regards to “gun shots” inside the residence. But most importantly whats written in the Texas Penal Code. Not to mention what the complainant told dispatch about what they saw and heard.
pfdept59
Member
Better call Saul Goodman
Horimono
Well-known Member
Lmao. I literally laughed out loud when I read that. Classic.
The only question where i think it may give them leeway (my opinion) is if the officers would have to have heard the gunshots themselves for the exigent circumstances. Can they go off a citizens word and with no apparent evidence when they arrived? But the fact is i doubt anyone here really knows what actually happened. What the situation was like when officers arrived on the scene.
As far as judges adhering to the rules, laws, constitution, etc. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
As far as judges adhering to the rules, laws, constitution, etc. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
Horimono
Well-known Member
Very good point. I completely agree. I didn’t even consider it. No way they are gonna fucking barge in your house without a warrant based on hearsay. Just because the neighbor said he heard gunshots from within the residence. Who knows what good Ol Sammy and his Old Lady said or did when they arrived. Maybe the law heard something highly unusual. Maybe they actually heard gunfire too.
Last edited:
HIGHRISK
Pro
This is where you’re wrong my friend...
Pinellas County Judge Tosses Evidence in 2016 Child Porn Case
Logan44551
Elite
From article
"The attorney says the outcome of this case is incredibly rare. It is the first time he has seen a Pinellas judge suppress a search warrant."
Also they lied on the paper work to get the warrant, doesn't seem like similar circumstances to this case at all. We can all speculate, but will have to wait and see what happens
HIGHRISK
Pro
All I’m saying is anything is possible if your attorney is good and you get lucky. Imagine this pedo walking free because of a technicality? Makes me sick to even think about it.
It’s not just a state law issue, 4th Amendment of US Constitution protects us all as well. This is something folks should at least consider, just in case unwanted visitors every come a knockin. You don’t have to talk to them, you don’t have to let them in either, unless they have a warrant. Safest measure is to do whatever the folks in uniform holding guns order you to do, just don’t consent to shit you don’t want to. Smartest thing is promptly ask to call someone before you say anything.
In the alleged event here, based upon Media reports, which are typically riddled with as much inaccuracies and legit facts—local LE entered to ensure safety, of whom is not known. How they knew a gun was fired inside the home is unclear. Neighbor couldn’t tell that, at most someone close by could have heard a muffled shot believed to come from the home, but that doesn’t mean it in fact did. There are quite a few cases out there of shots fired at, in, around homes, and LE go charging in under claims of exigent circumstances, and the drugs, guns, (one case below a grenade) get suppressed as there have to be clear articulable facts leading to a sound conclusion one of very few exigent circumstances exist if no warrant was secured first. Moreover, California Supreme Court recently closed their loophole the govt had established around the exigency requirement (Fun read of a suicidal gent with couple cool weapons like an Uzi and a Hash Oil lab:California Supreme Court Closes Fourth Amendment Loophole That Let Cops Seize Guns Without Warrants ) further showing Just how big of a deal and protection is intended to apply to our privacy within our own homes.
Here are a few quick-read snipits on exigency—
United States v. Yengel, 711 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2013)
The police went to the defendant’s house in response to a domestic disturbance call. The wife had left by the time the police arrived and the defendant agreed to talk to the police on the front porch. During this conversation, the police learned that the defendant had a grenade in the house. Without pausing to obtain a warrant, the police went into the house, found various guns in one part of the house and pried open a closet door and found other explosives there. The Fourth Circuit held that exigent circumstances did not support this warrantless entry into the house.
United States v. Delgado, 701 F.3d 1161 (7th Cir. 2012)
The police responded to a report of gunshots. When they arrived at the scene, they saw one man (the defendant) running toward an apartment building. Next, the police were told by a bystander that his cousin had been shot and that he was hiding in a particular apartment. The police went to the apartment and the shooting victim and the defendant came to the door. The victim had a graze wound on his arm. The police were not given any information that there were any guns in the apartment or any perpetrator of the shooting. The police were not told that the shooting had occurred in the apartment. Neither the victim, nor the defendant was armed. After detaining the defendant, the police entered the apartment, later arguing that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry. The Seventh Circuit held that exigent circumstances did not authorize the warrantless entry and the evidence located in the apartment should have been suppressed.
United States v. Ramirez, 676 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012)
The police believed that the occupants of a hotel room had heroin in their possession. The police knocked on the door; the occupants opened the door and then immediately shut it when they saw the police were there. The Eighth Circuit held that this did not authorize the police to enter under the exigent circumstances theory. Prior to knocking on the door, there was no evidence that the occupants were aware that the police were there or that any evidence was being destroyed. The occupants have the right to refuse to allow the police to enter (and this is what the Kentucky v. King Court held), and the mere act of shutting the door was not sufficient to establish that there were exigent circumstances (i.e., that the occupants were about to destroy evidence).
United States v. Simmons, 661 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2011)
The defendant’s roommate called the police and said that the defendant had a gun and he requested that the police come to the apartment to help him retrieve his property from inside the apartment. The police went to the apartment and asked the defendant about the presence of a gun, and the defendant told them it was in his room. The police went into the room and retrieved the gun, leading to the defendant’s prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The Second Circuit held that the un-Mirandizedquestioning was proper pursuant to Quarles, but the entry into the bedroom was not supported by exigent circumstances or any other exception to the warrant requirement which is especially important in the context of the search of a home. The evidence should have been suppressed.
United States v. Hill, 649 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2011)
The information known to the police was not sufficient to support a reasonable belief that the target of an arrest warrant was present in the residence that they entered. There were also no exigent circumstances to justify the entry into the residence, despite apparent damage to the door frame that the police observed when they arrived.
United States v. Martinez, 643 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2011)
A 911 operator received a “static” only call. There was nobody on the line, just static. An officer was dispatched to the house. When the police arrived, there was on sign of any emergency, or even an occupant in the house. The police looked into the house from a sliding glass door and saw various boxes of electronic equipment and the house appeared somewhat disheveled. The police then entered, announced their presence and asked if anybody was home (nobody was in the house) and conducted a sweep search, during which they found drugs and child pornography. When they exited the home, the defendant drove up and he was questioned and made incriminating statements. The police then secured a search warrant. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the trial court suppressing all the evidence on the basis that there was no exigency that supported the warrantless entry into the house and the defendant’s statement was the fruit of that unlawful statement. Thus, the search warrant was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
United States v. Etchin, 614 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2010)
The police were provided information from a recently-arrested individual that the supplier of drugs was located at a certain residence. The police went to that residence, knocked on the door and were denied consent to enter. The police entered despite the occupant’s refusal to consent. The police then secured the property and awaited the arrival of a search warrant. The Seventh Circuit held that there were no exigent circumstances supporting this entry. However, pursuant to Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984), the seizure of the house was permissible because there was probable cause to believe there were drugs in the house.
United States v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010)
A neighbor called the police and reported that a white man wearing a black leather jacket had just climbed over a fence in her neighor’s yard and she could not see who it was, but the neighbors were not home. The police went to the location, looked over the fence and promptly detained (with guns drawn) the defendant, who fit the description and was walking around in the backyard. He was searched and a gun was found. They then determined that he lived at that house; and also learned that he was a convicted felon who could not possess a firearm. The Ninth Circuit held (1) there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant – despite the report from the neighbor, the police should have asked the defendant his name and obtained information about where he lived before arresting him ; (2) there were no exigent circumstances to support the arrest and search; (3) the backyard was part of the cartilage of the house.
United States v. Menchaca-Castruita, 587 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2009)
The defendant’s landlord entered the defendant’s house and saw marijuana in plain view on the floor. The landlord promptly called the police from the driveway. The defendant came out of the house, assaulted the landlord and then fled in his car before the police arrived. The police then arrived and entered the house without a warrant. The Fifth Circuit held that exigent circumstances did not justify entering the house without a warrant. The officers had no reason to believe that they were investigating a violent drug-trafficking ring; there was no evidence that the defendant had a firearm, or that there was a firearm or anybody else located in the house; or that there was any risk that the evidence was at risk of being destroyed. There was time to obtain a warrant and no reason not to do so.
In the alleged event here, based upon Media reports, which are typically riddled with as much inaccuracies and legit facts—local LE entered to ensure safety, of whom is not known. How they knew a gun was fired inside the home is unclear. Neighbor couldn’t tell that, at most someone close by could have heard a muffled shot believed to come from the home, but that doesn’t mean it in fact did. There are quite a few cases out there of shots fired at, in, around homes, and LE go charging in under claims of exigent circumstances, and the drugs, guns, (one case below a grenade) get suppressed as there have to be clear articulable facts leading to a sound conclusion one of very few exigent circumstances exist if no warrant was secured first. Moreover, California Supreme Court recently closed their loophole the govt had established around the exigency requirement (Fun read of a suicidal gent with couple cool weapons like an Uzi and a Hash Oil lab:California Supreme Court Closes Fourth Amendment Loophole That Let Cops Seize Guns Without Warrants ) further showing Just how big of a deal and protection is intended to apply to our privacy within our own homes.
Here are a few quick-read snipits on exigency—
United States v. Yengel, 711 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2013)
The police went to the defendant’s house in response to a domestic disturbance call. The wife had left by the time the police arrived and the defendant agreed to talk to the police on the front porch. During this conversation, the police learned that the defendant had a grenade in the house. Without pausing to obtain a warrant, the police went into the house, found various guns in one part of the house and pried open a closet door and found other explosives there. The Fourth Circuit held that exigent circumstances did not support this warrantless entry into the house.
United States v. Delgado, 701 F.3d 1161 (7th Cir. 2012)
The police responded to a report of gunshots. When they arrived at the scene, they saw one man (the defendant) running toward an apartment building. Next, the police were told by a bystander that his cousin had been shot and that he was hiding in a particular apartment. The police went to the apartment and the shooting victim and the defendant came to the door. The victim had a graze wound on his arm. The police were not given any information that there were any guns in the apartment or any perpetrator of the shooting. The police were not told that the shooting had occurred in the apartment. Neither the victim, nor the defendant was armed. After detaining the defendant, the police entered the apartment, later arguing that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry. The Seventh Circuit held that exigent circumstances did not authorize the warrantless entry and the evidence located in the apartment should have been suppressed.
United States v. Ramirez, 676 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012)
The police believed that the occupants of a hotel room had heroin in their possession. The police knocked on the door; the occupants opened the door and then immediately shut it when they saw the police were there. The Eighth Circuit held that this did not authorize the police to enter under the exigent circumstances theory. Prior to knocking on the door, there was no evidence that the occupants were aware that the police were there or that any evidence was being destroyed. The occupants have the right to refuse to allow the police to enter (and this is what the Kentucky v. King Court held), and the mere act of shutting the door was not sufficient to establish that there were exigent circumstances (i.e., that the occupants were about to destroy evidence).
United States v. Simmons, 661 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2011)
The defendant’s roommate called the police and said that the defendant had a gun and he requested that the police come to the apartment to help him retrieve his property from inside the apartment. The police went to the apartment and asked the defendant about the presence of a gun, and the defendant told them it was in his room. The police went into the room and retrieved the gun, leading to the defendant’s prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The Second Circuit held that the un-Mirandizedquestioning was proper pursuant to Quarles, but the entry into the bedroom was not supported by exigent circumstances or any other exception to the warrant requirement which is especially important in the context of the search of a home. The evidence should have been suppressed.
United States v. Hill, 649 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2011)
The information known to the police was not sufficient to support a reasonable belief that the target of an arrest warrant was present in the residence that they entered. There were also no exigent circumstances to justify the entry into the residence, despite apparent damage to the door frame that the police observed when they arrived.
United States v. Martinez, 643 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2011)
A 911 operator received a “static” only call. There was nobody on the line, just static. An officer was dispatched to the house. When the police arrived, there was on sign of any emergency, or even an occupant in the house. The police looked into the house from a sliding glass door and saw various boxes of electronic equipment and the house appeared somewhat disheveled. The police then entered, announced their presence and asked if anybody was home (nobody was in the house) and conducted a sweep search, during which they found drugs and child pornography. When they exited the home, the defendant drove up and he was questioned and made incriminating statements. The police then secured a search warrant. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the trial court suppressing all the evidence on the basis that there was no exigency that supported the warrantless entry into the house and the defendant’s statement was the fruit of that unlawful statement. Thus, the search warrant was the fruit of the poisonous tree.
United States v. Etchin, 614 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2010)
The police were provided information from a recently-arrested individual that the supplier of drugs was located at a certain residence. The police went to that residence, knocked on the door and were denied consent to enter. The police entered despite the occupant’s refusal to consent. The police then secured the property and awaited the arrival of a search warrant. The Seventh Circuit held that there were no exigent circumstances supporting this entry. However, pursuant to Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984), the seizure of the house was permissible because there was probable cause to believe there were drugs in the house.
United States v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010)
A neighbor called the police and reported that a white man wearing a black leather jacket had just climbed over a fence in her neighor’s yard and she could not see who it was, but the neighbors were not home. The police went to the location, looked over the fence and promptly detained (with guns drawn) the defendant, who fit the description and was walking around in the backyard. He was searched and a gun was found. They then determined that he lived at that house; and also learned that he was a convicted felon who could not possess a firearm. The Ninth Circuit held (1) there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant – despite the report from the neighbor, the police should have asked the defendant his name and obtained information about where he lived before arresting him ; (2) there were no exigent circumstances to support the arrest and search; (3) the backyard was part of the cartilage of the house.
United States v. Menchaca-Castruita, 587 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 2009)
The defendant’s landlord entered the defendant’s house and saw marijuana in plain view on the floor. The landlord promptly called the police from the driveway. The defendant came out of the house, assaulted the landlord and then fled in his car before the police arrived. The police then arrived and entered the house without a warrant. The Fifth Circuit held that exigent circumstances did not justify entering the house without a warrant. The officers had no reason to believe that they were investigating a violent drug-trafficking ring; there was no evidence that the defendant had a firearm, or that there was a firearm or anybody else located in the house; or that there was any risk that the evidence was at risk of being destroyed. There was time to obtain a warrant and no reason not to do so.
Not trying to bore folks over this stuff, it’s simply something I think folks who care even a little bit about their privacy, the privacy of things they may keep in their home, and their freedoms, owe it themselves to know at least a little bit about.
LE mess up searches all the time, some by mistake, some seem more purposeful. When they do, Judges regularly toss fruits of said unlawful searches. The burden of proving the search was legit by a lawful warrant or fell within the narrow list of exceptions is on the govt.
LE mess up searches all the time, some by mistake, some seem more purposeful. When they do, Judges regularly toss fruits of said unlawful searches. The burden of proving the search was legit by a lawful warrant or fell within the narrow list of exceptions is on the govt.
Horimono
Well-known Member
Great post man. All VERY important info. The exclusionary rule is something ALL of us need to be aware of. I love the law and studied criminal justice in college. Was pre law for a time and wanted to become a criminal defense attorney. Take note....in all of these cases (I read all of what you posted) the defendants were wrongly convicted in State Court. Just like I previously stated, when a defendants 4th amendment rights are truly violated, it’s only after a trial in State Court and APPEAL at the appellate level that the cases get remanded or overturned. Goes to show you that you won’t beat the ride. You will have to go to trial. Lose. Go to prison. Then go to appeal before the court decides in your favor or not. All of the cases went to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
However, I suppose there are limited cases where a State Prosecutor could see a defendant's 4th amendment rights were violated and refuse to prosecute the case. They would have to release the defendant and dismiss the charges. Then face a law suit for wrongful arrest. I would have to do a little research to cite cases, but in my opinion Prosecutors want to prosecute and win.
I think it’s less likely for a defendant to be released from custody with their charges dropped became the local LE fucked up then a defendant to get convicted and released on appeal.
All good things to consider. All good things to learn about. Especially in this game. We call it a game, but brothers, it ain’t no game.
HIGHRISK
Pro
Great informative post. Many citizens are brainwashed into thinking you have to open the door for anyone especially LE. The government seems to want to chip away at our rights and most people aren’t educated enough to realize what rights we actually have and how to lawfully uphold those. You wanna come in my house you’ll need a warrant plain and simple. Seen a show I believe it was live pd or something where a guy spoke to the le through his window and refused them entry. After much debate and le basically threatening him to let them in to check if everything was ok. They left lol. They knew they had no viable leg to stand on. Know your rights and the law people.
chocolatemalt
New Member
I'm sure the detectives and prosecutors are doing a calculus on what the odds are the defendant will have the wits and wherewithal to fight unjust charges through an appeals process. If you're lacking in education and/or money, you're most likely just fucked. Which in practice means most people in the system.
While you might find a prosecutor somewhere that refuses to prosecute a clearly fucked case, most often they still overcharge and hope the leverage of what is possible forces some resolution short of a dismissal. I’d say most search issues are negotiated between counsel long before they are briefed to the judge. In most all cases, unless there is a also a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, there will be a motion to suppress the results of an unlawful search well before trial. To complain of the lower courts ruling in allowing the evidence to go to the jury, you need to preserve the issue for appeal.
One additional thing to realize when reading appellate cases, whether federal or state, you have to understand there are far more examples that were properly and correctly suppressed at the trial court level. When LE clearly screws up, which happens often enough simply through human error, let alone the increased numbers by officers playing loose and knowingly, purposefully breaking the law, those cases get poured out pre-trial, or negotiated for reduced resolutions, and there is no appeal sought by the govt. So the only cases to review for precedent are those close cases where the lower court dropped the ball, and the accused or the govt. sought appellate review of the issue. Vast majority will be the accused appealing, and rightfully so. So when we see the vast piles of appeals being from convicted folks, it doesn’t mean that is how it always goes, it’s also part of how the system is designed to work, if we disagree with the result in part upon the judges ruling on admissibility if evidence or instructions to the jurors, even testimony that comes in which shouldn’t have, we have a review process. Judges hate being reversed, so they will most often follow the law including tossing a case when the facts are clear. That said, they will almost always give the benefit of unclear circumstances, how the law applies to certain set of facts, to the goat. If it’s a close call, expect to lose on initial trial court rulings.
One additional thing to realize when reading appellate cases, whether federal or state, you have to understand there are far more examples that were properly and correctly suppressed at the trial court level. When LE clearly screws up, which happens often enough simply through human error, let alone the increased numbers by officers playing loose and knowingly, purposefully breaking the law, those cases get poured out pre-trial, or negotiated for reduced resolutions, and there is no appeal sought by the govt. So the only cases to review for precedent are those close cases where the lower court dropped the ball, and the accused or the govt. sought appellate review of the issue. Vast majority will be the accused appealing, and rightfully so. So when we see the vast piles of appeals being from convicted folks, it doesn’t mean that is how it always goes, it’s also part of how the system is designed to work, if we disagree with the result in part upon the judges ruling on admissibility if evidence or instructions to the jurors, even testimony that comes in which shouldn’t have, we have a review process. Judges hate being reversed, so they will most often follow the law including tossing a case when the facts are clear. That said, they will almost always give the benefit of unclear circumstances, how the law applies to certain set of facts, to the goat. If it’s a close call, expect to lose on initial trial court rulings.
MisterSuperGod
Well-known Member
Nothing brings out the weekend detectives and arm chair law students like a steroid bust.
Reminds me of Facebook, just less gay.
Reminds me of Facebook, just less gay.
Last post on this—at least for now—cops will play as fast and loose as the law allows. Law allows them to lie to you, say they know shit they don’t, that you need to come out and talk to them, that they need to come in and talk to you, that they want to make sure you’re ok, or your loved one is. That they need to look in your closet, car, cooler, whatever it is, just to make sure everything is fine or nothing going on. Yes, they need you to agree to let them do that so they can discover if their hunch or suspicion of criminality is accurate and CHARGE YOUR ASS.
Good cops will use their training in this regard to play games and play with your natural emotions and human nature not to defy authority. Smart citizen doesn’t go out of their way to be a dick to the folks with guns, badges, fuck you spray, and tasers. It’s simply not smart and can cause the ability on their part to go further than might otherwise be allowed under the law.
A smart citizen politely says to fuck off, or better yet, a simple no thank you. For LE to seize you of your freedom, they need PC, probable cause, same as arrest. Most often, even when they have reports and hunches, and even some collateral proof—they don’t have what they need to charge or there are still gaps or they wouldn’t be asking to come in, or to talk to you, or to look in your car/shed/cooler. They would show up with a warrant to search what they wanted and a warrant to arrest you. So don’t give it away—listen to words used. Whether a simple DUI stop, or more serious like here. Do not agree to consent to anything. Politely decline if they are asking you. If they tell you to get the fuck down on the ground, or order anything, do it. They have guns and qualified immunity if they use them even if wrong. It’s not limitless immunity, but they can make mistakes and skate.
They are wielding authority, but in a request fashion—whether like “golly jeepers, mind if I come in and just want to make sure everything is ok,” or more forceful, “you need to let us in to ensure.” They are trying to get consent to search. If you have anything you don’t want LE to see, don’t give it up. Give your lawyer something to work with, don’t fuck yourself. Politely decline, say you’ll do whatever they order you to do, not fighting them, but no agreeing to let them in, let them search, or answer questions. AND you want to make a phone call to your lawyer—don’t want to talk to them before.
Invoking right to consult counsel, even if you have a hard time shutting your mouth after, can give some protection. Mostly only in response to subsequent questions from LE—if you keep spontaneously making statements, meaning things not responsive to subsequent questions from cops, those can still be used. Forcing LE to make a choice of searching or seizing you or evidence without more or a warrant sets the stage for them to mess up. Smart, lawful LE will leave at that point. Those willing to violate the most fundamental of laws to enforce later, code violations, will do just that, and your lawyer has things to work with, things that can make huge difference in your life and your family’s.
I tell folks the same thing I would do. If ever pulled over for a DUI—when asked if I would get out for Sobriety tests, I would ask if I have to. If asked if I would or want to, no I don’t want to. I will do whatever you tell me I have to, or order me to, but otherwise no. He will have to make the decision from the car window, and if he orders me from their, he has seized me of my freedom and Miranda attaches. Same at my home, but admit for myself, I would not likely open the door without a warrant, even if they ordered me to. I would tell them I will lay on the floor in plain sight, not fighting, but not willing to open the door. No fighting posture, all passive with them, but they’ll need to kick my door in.
Last point—look up lawyers. Good to know who you want to call if ever needed. Avvo.com is a good place to research close to you, but just as a jumping off place to identify folks, then go to their website and see if they have emergency, after hour number. That’s the one you want. Good to keep a couple names in mind—hopefully never for something serious like here, but even if a kid or sibling or spouse, or hell even you, get something like a DUI stop.
stay safe, be smart.
Good cops will use their training in this regard to play games and play with your natural emotions and human nature not to defy authority. Smart citizen doesn’t go out of their way to be a dick to the folks with guns, badges, fuck you spray, and tasers. It’s simply not smart and can cause the ability on their part to go further than might otherwise be allowed under the law.
A smart citizen politely says to fuck off, or better yet, a simple no thank you. For LE to seize you of your freedom, they need PC, probable cause, same as arrest. Most often, even when they have reports and hunches, and even some collateral proof—they don’t have what they need to charge or there are still gaps or they wouldn’t be asking to come in, or to talk to you, or to look in your car/shed/cooler. They would show up with a warrant to search what they wanted and a warrant to arrest you. So don’t give it away—listen to words used. Whether a simple DUI stop, or more serious like here. Do not agree to consent to anything. Politely decline if they are asking you. If they tell you to get the fuck down on the ground, or order anything, do it. They have guns and qualified immunity if they use them even if wrong. It’s not limitless immunity, but they can make mistakes and skate.
They are wielding authority, but in a request fashion—whether like “golly jeepers, mind if I come in and just want to make sure everything is ok,” or more forceful, “you need to let us in to ensure.” They are trying to get consent to search. If you have anything you don’t want LE to see, don’t give it up. Give your lawyer something to work with, don’t fuck yourself. Politely decline, say you’ll do whatever they order you to do, not fighting them, but no agreeing to let them in, let them search, or answer questions. AND you want to make a phone call to your lawyer—don’t want to talk to them before.
Invoking right to consult counsel, even if you have a hard time shutting your mouth after, can give some protection. Mostly only in response to subsequent questions from LE—if you keep spontaneously making statements, meaning things not responsive to subsequent questions from cops, those can still be used. Forcing LE to make a choice of searching or seizing you or evidence without more or a warrant sets the stage for them to mess up. Smart, lawful LE will leave at that point. Those willing to violate the most fundamental of laws to enforce later, code violations, will do just that, and your lawyer has things to work with, things that can make huge difference in your life and your family’s.
I tell folks the same thing I would do. If ever pulled over for a DUI—when asked if I would get out for Sobriety tests, I would ask if I have to. If asked if I would or want to, no I don’t want to. I will do whatever you tell me I have to, or order me to, but otherwise no. He will have to make the decision from the car window, and if he orders me from their, he has seized me of my freedom and Miranda attaches. Same at my home, but admit for myself, I would not likely open the door without a warrant, even if they ordered me to. I would tell them I will lay on the floor in plain sight, not fighting, but not willing to open the door. No fighting posture, all passive with them, but they’ll need to kick my door in.
Last point—look up lawyers. Good to know who you want to call if ever needed. Avvo.com is a good place to research close to you, but just as a jumping off place to identify folks, then go to their website and see if they have emergency, after hour number. That’s the one you want. Good to keep a couple names in mind—hopefully never for something serious like here, but even if a kid or sibling or spouse, or hell even you, get something like a DUI stop.
stay safe, be smart.
HIGHRISK
Pro
I like to play I SPY every now and then does that count?.
@Oncewild
B-O-N-E-R
Told you before, gotta make it provocative and interesting. Otherwise nobody is going to read that!
B-O-N-E-R
Told you before, gotta make it provocative and interesting. Otherwise nobody is going to read that!
Similar threads
