Cops pay 3 a.m. visit to tell man his door is unlocked

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

Ever heard of a SEARCH WARRANT -

Which is not required if there is probable cause:

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction or a suspect will escape.
Generally, an emergency, a pressing necessity, or a set of circumstances requiring immediate attention or swift action. In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstances means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.

So it comes down to a discussion of whether or not the events are significant enough to warrant probable case. In this case I agree that the officers had enough reasonable suspicion to allow them to enter the structure after there was no response to their attempts to knock on the door.

Article and Local New Video
Lakeville Police Sgt. Jim Puncochar said the intrusion was justified because the officers' initial door knocks were not answered, so they went inside to check if anything was wrong.

He said the kids inside - Molde's two sons and two nephews - were afraid to wake Molde, so the officers went upstairs. "It really was suspicious," Puncochar said.

Police say many crimes originate with open garage doors. In May, a 52-year-old Burnsville man was stabbed and left to die in his burning town house after two assailants entered his home at 4:30 a.m. by way of an open garage door.

Here are some pertinent bits that I found in an additional article, plus a video including what the house looked like and an interview with the owner. The garage was an attached garage and the officers entered the house through that door when they saw children laying on the floor. Again all of this comes down to if the police felt they had a possible case of walking into a crime scene or not. They have already voiced their opinion of the scene as they found: "It really was suspicious, Puncochar said”…
Remember Reasonable suspicion.

reply to post by defcon5

"To establish probable cause, one must show a probability of criminal activity

Again as I stated before you wanted to play games - Where is the evidence of Criminal Activity. Was there blood on the floor? Were there drugs visible? Were exactly is the evidence for a crime and where is the WARRANT.

They never obtained a search warrant.

The procedure for obtaining a search warrant involves an ex parte presentation to the magistrate of an affidavit by the law enforcement officer seeking the warrant and requesting the magistrate to issue the warrant based on "'the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity . . . .' " Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 235; People v. Von Villas (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 175, 217 ["To establish probable cause, one must show a probability of criminal activity; a prima facie showing is not required."]

You also ignore

There are three interests that the "knock and announce" requirement of section 3109 is intended to serve. This requirement (1) reduces the potential for violence to both police officers and the occupants of the house into which entry is sought (safety interest); (2) guards against the needless destruction of private property (property interest); and (3) symbolizes respect for individual privacy (privacy interest). Id. at 588.

This is what it boils down to Respect. (3) symbolizes respect for individual privacy (privacy interest). Id. at 588.

RESPECT for individual PRIVACY - What happened to that? No wonder nobody respects cops any more.


[edit on 22-6-2008 by verylowfrequency]

reply to post by defcon5


What crime did they suspect? Where is the Warrant? Where is the emergency or eminent danger? Where is the extraordinary circumstances? There is none.

I can just see the pigs explain the the judge - well sir the emergency that I felt allowed me to circumnavigate around their civil rights was err - they left the garage door wide open in which case I felt everyone in the home was in potential eminent danger just encase some criminals happened to come by and notice the door was open. Blah blah blah baloney.

The COPS and their supporters who desecrate our constitution are FOS and deserve to die a slow painful death for this violation. I would like to see the DEATH Penalty for those who violate our civil rights - it is the only way to curb this nonsense otherwise we will soon have a civil war in order to slaughter all the privacy violating perps.

I would like to see a ruling that establishes the GARAGE door as an entry door to the home that would allow police to bypass the reasonable expectation of privacy of the 4th amendment.

Do we have to build walls around our homes in order to demand respect for our privacy?

When some punks drive by with garage door controllers opening everyones doors does that mean we no longer have established a reasonable expectation of privacy, because someone hacked our code? Baloney.

I demand privacy and I will defend my right to it with my life if that means taking others lives who seek to infringe upon my expectation of privacy - bottom line.


[edit on 22-6-2008 by verylowfrequency]

reply to post by verylowfrequency


All that stuff you are posting is secondary and overridden by this:

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES - Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

Exigent circumstances may excuse failure to make an announcement or to wait for the occupant to refuse entry. United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F. 2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1993). The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of fact and law reviewed de novo. Id.

A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.

The federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. S 3109. Section 3109 requires 'police officers [to] knock, announce and be refused entry before they break into a residence. Exigent circumstances excuse noncompliance.' United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 830 (1991). Specifically, the court found that immediate entry was necessary 'for [the officers'] protection and the protection of others inside as well as to prevent the destruction of any drugs in defendant's possession or in the home.'

A simultaneous, no-refusal entry is permissible if at least 'mild exigent circumstances' were present. See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1206 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (mild exigency is sufficient to justify simultaneous knock/announce and entry if entry does not require physical destruction of property), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984); United States v. Whitney, 633 F.2d 902, 909 (9th Cir.'80) ('only a mild indication of exigency is required to excuse noncompliance with the `refusal of admittance' requirement of section 3109'), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1004 (1981).

When police have a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy and contraband might be destroyed, this usually constitutes sufficient exigency to justify a simultaneous, no-refusal entry. See McConney, 728 F.2d at 1206; Whitney, 633 F.2d at 909-10.

So when the house appears to be occupied, TV’s on, people are laying on the floor, and on one is responding to the police knocking at the door, the officers have a reason to believe that there is something wrong with the people and they are in jeopardy. Whether they are dead or unconscious, they are not responding to the knocking….
Period, they lose if this goes to court, you watch.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
What crime did they suspect?

Maybe that someone had broken in, killed the occupants, and left the doors open while fleeing.

reply to post by defcon5


Now since we are in the mood of "What Ifs". What if this person was living on a farm on private property with a sign posted that said "Private Property Unauthorized Trespassing Will Result In Use Of Lethal Force".

Well good luck to the cops.

[edit on 6-22-2008 by CPYKOmega]

reply to post by defcon5


Somewhere along the line someone forgot the intent of our constitution. Bottom line if they don't follow the law I don't have to either thus like them I don't care what the law says either - if it comes down to it and anyone violates my privacy I'll happily remove their right to exist if they don't remove me first. If it becomes a regular thing than we'll take it from the courts to the streets and we'll do it all over again just like we did in the days before we established our rights on paper until those who are left get it or we all are dead.

Live free or die trying. Hallelujah!!!

[edit on 22-6-2008 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
Now since we are in the mood of "What Ifs". What if this person was living on a farm on private property will a sign posted that said "Private Property Unauthorized Trespassing Will Result In Use Of Lethal Force".

First off a private citizen cannot enforce trespass with lethal force, its illegal (even under the castle law) as its not a felony. Secondly, you cannot trespass a law enforcement officer who is working in his normal line of duty. If you could then you can bet all the people out there with warrants for their arrest would have signs on their property just like you mentioned.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Somewhere along the line someone forgot the intent of our constitution.

Yes you did, remember the bit about:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Bottom line if they don't follow the law I don't have to either thus like them I don't care what the law says either

They did follow the law, the circumstances as they presented themselves to the officers upheld a reasonable suspicion that there was something wrong, and allowed them to enter as an exigent circumstance appeared to exist.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
if it comes down to it and anyone violates my privacy I'll happily remove their right to exist if they don't remove me first.

Then you will go to jail like the criminal you would be.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
If it becomes a regular thing than we'll take it from the courts to the streets and we'll do it all over again just like we did in the days before we established our rights on paper until those who are left get it or we all are dead.

You would probably only get the one chance then you would find out the hard way that criminals have no right to privacy…


[edit on 6/22/2008 by defcon5]

it would be scary but the guy should be thankful it was the police who entered his house and not some crazed mentalist especially with a group of children sleeping over. As for usually leaving notices on the door that is ridiculous i wouldnt be to pleased if a note was on my door basically alerting everyone to the fact my door is unlocked. This guy should say thankyou and lock his door from then on, his little fright will undoubtedly cause him to check before he goes to bed.

I don't see why this is news worthy. I guess anything police related these days is news worthy, huh?

reply to post by defcon5


somebody has been jumped and dragged in the house ??????? and then what ? put the victims children to sleep . i thank you god for not letting this guys mission in life to be a cop . dude i live in the LA area and that is not a common happening . you need to lay off the comic books and try tp remember that TV and movies are not real .
i like what lone gunman said earlier , and that was turn on the overheads and hit the siren . if you dont get a reaction from that then i'm sure a neighbor who the homeowner knows could go over and notify him about the situation .
and what do you expect the kid to say when the cop asked him to wake up the father ? even the child knows better than to go into pop's room at 3am cause your probably gonna get your ass beat .
i grew up in the same house for 25yrs and we never even locked the house up when we went on vacations and never had anything ever come up missing . heck i dont recall ever seeing a key for that door either . god must have been looking over us to never have been killed or raped in all of those years .

reply to post by defcon5

i have to reply to this one too . the tv is on and nobody answers the door at 3am in the morning . that's every night at my house and they still dont have my concent to enter . this story does not fit the criteria of emergency aid .

Originally posted by ironman433
somebody has been jumped and dragged in the house ??????? and then what ? put the victims children to sleep . i thank you god for not letting this guys mission in life to be a cop .

My read on the way it was explained in the video was that the cops basically saw bodies laying on the floor, there is no way to tell if they were asleep or not from outside the house, but they were obviously not responding to knocking or the doorbell. For all we know they might have only seen a portion of someone’s body, like a foot sticking out form behind furniture, we don’t have that information. However, you get your laughs in now, but we’ll see who ends up being right if this goes to court. Any of you that don’t get the concept of why it was OK for them to enter that house, thank god none of you are cops because you would either be killed early in your career for trusting the wrong person, or be fired for having left a scene because it did not look like something was wrong to you.

Originally posted by ironman433
you need to lay off the comic books and try tp remember that TV and movies are not real.

All you folks that are saying it was wrong for them to enter are the ones going off of TV, I showed the actual law already.

Originally posted by ironman433
i like what lone gunman said earlier , and that was turn on the overheads and hit the siren

Police do not use the siren in a neighborhood at 03:00 am, and LG should know that if he is a firefighter. Ambulances even shut off their siren when entering a neighborhood.

Originally posted by ironman433
i grew up in the same house for 25yrs and we never even locked the house up when we went on vacations and never had anything ever come up missing . heck i dont recall ever seeing a key for that door either . god must have been looking over us to never have been killed or raped in all of those years .

Or maybe you did not live in a high crime area.

Originally posted by ironman433
i have to reply to this one too . the tv is on and nobody answers the door at 3am in the morning .

You also leave you garage open, the keys in the car, and the door ajar? Guess its not the same situation then, is it?

Originally posted by defcon5
My read on the way it was explained in the video was that the cops basically saw bodies laying on the floor, there is no way to tell if they were asleep or not from outside the house, but they were obviously not responding to knocking or the doorbell.

Well apparently the kids DID wake up, the cop talked to one of them. At that point the cop should have either left a note for the homeowner, or left and followed up the next day after telling the kids to lock the doors. Once he realized the house was NOT a crime scene he should have left.

I think the cops thought they were doing the right thing, I don't think they are evil, but I think it was a stupid thing to do.

reply to post by defcon5


I beg to differ as here in Canada as a freeman on the land under the Criminal Code of Canada and Contract Law if I put a sign up on my land which says exactly that it is completely legal.

reply to post by Sonya610


I am sure that the officer asked if an adult was home, as it is also illegal to leave children under a certain age unattended. It does not say the age of the children, but in the video they looked to be pretty young.

reply to post by CPYKOmega


Well we are not talking about Canada, now are we?
Did the incident happen in Canada?
No…
Then why would that have any bearing on this discussion?
On top of that, how am I supposed to know that you live in another country?

Oh, and I can put up a sign like that here in the US too, but if I try and enforce it, I’ll be the one going to jail.


[edit on 6/22/2008 by defcon5]