|
Raw
Muslim



Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 1,419
Loc: USA West Coast
|
Not answering the door
#12575250 - 05/16/10 07:51 PM (14 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
What do you do if the police come to the door? Do you have to answer it?
Let's say your door is locked and the car is parked in the driveway.
I've been told never to answer it and call the sheriff's dept or local police the next day.
How does it work?
I just don't want to deal with anyone if I don't have to anymore or have them look at my house and violate my privacy.
If they have an erroneous warrant will they just bust down the door?
|
Pfffffff
I am sofa king we todd ed
Registered: 10/02/09
Posts: 486
Loc: Somewhere that is fiction...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Raw]
#12575542 - 05/16/10 08:47 PM (14 years, 6 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- **************************************************** I am part of this community as a role playing character. All information is gathered on the internet. In no way, shape, or form is any of what I say truthful or real life experience. Any advice given or received is purely for entertainment value and not intended for any kind of illegal activity. ****************************************************
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Pfffffff]
#12583769 - 05/18/10 04:46 AM (14 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
> What do you do if the police come to the door? Do you have to answer it?
Don't answer the door. If they don't have a warrant and you don't answer they simply have to go away. Doesn't matter what cars are parked outside or even if they know you're in there. You have no obligation to open your door for anyone without a warrant.
Usually they'll leave a card if they really want to talk to you.
-FF
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Raw]
#12585001 - 05/18/10 11:09 AM (14 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Why would you call them the next day? I never do.
|
Le_Canard
The Duk Abides


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 94,392
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Raw] 1
#12587831 - 05/18/10 06:30 PM (14 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Here's a good way to differentiate: If they come to the door and simply knock, they don't have a warrent and answering is optional. If they come to the door, knock briefly and bust the door down, they have a warrant and answering is mandatory.
Edited by Le_Canard (05/19/10 03:19 AM)
|
illuminati
Strange


Registered: 06/17/07
Posts: 556
Loc: Aboard the T.A.R.D.I.S.
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Le_Canard]
#12588179 - 05/18/10 07:38 PM (14 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Here's a good way to differentiate: If they come to the door and simply knock, they don't have a warrent and answering is optional. If the come to the door, knock briefly and bust the door down, they have a warrant and answering is mandatory.
Unless it's a no-knock warrant, in which case, I'd just expect the door to be busted open without much warning. I'd imagine they would normally announce that they had a warrant if it was a regular search warrant.
-------------------- I didn't get turned on I just got turned I wasn't as aroused as I was concerned for each one of 'em I've hurt and every time I've been burned I've got a lot to teach but even more to learn
|
Pfffffff
I am sofa king we todd ed
Registered: 10/02/09
Posts: 486
Loc: Somewhere that is fiction...
Last seen: 10 years, 11 months
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: illuminati]
#12588277 - 05/18/10 07:57 PM (14 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
illuminati said:
Quote:
ToiletDuk said: Here's a good way to differentiate: If they come to the door and simply knock, they don't have a warrent and answering is optional. If the come to the door, knock briefly and bust the door down, they have a warrant and answering is mandatory.
Unless it's a no-knock warrant, in which case, I'd just expect the door to be busted open without much warning. I'd imagine they would normally announce that they had a warrant if it was a regular search warrant.
If they can get in legally without knocking they will do it that way. If not, let them obtain a no-knock warrant and do everything you can to be innocent until they do.
-------------------- **************************************************** I am part of this community as a role playing character. All information is gathered on the internet. In no way, shape, or form is any of what I say truthful or real life experience. Any advice given or received is purely for entertainment value and not intended for any kind of illegal activity. ****************************************************
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Pfffffff]
#12593707 - 05/19/10 05:52 PM (14 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Not all warrants are no knock. Those are the exception not the rule. The best thing to do is lay low and do not answer. If they have an ordinary arrest warrant they can't come in even if they know you are home.
If you do come to the door and they say they have a warrant for your arrest, you still have options. An arrest warrant without a search warrant or no knock warrant does not allow them to come in and grab you. You can say you will give yourself up the next day at the police station and they will have to settle for that. But if you step outside... you can be grabbed.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Stonehenge]
#12597315 - 05/20/10 10:46 AM (14 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
> If they have an ordinary arrest warrant they can't come in even if they know you are home.
They certainly can. Knowing you are home and having a warrant for you is plenty of probable cause to enter.
> You can say you will give yourself up the next day at the police station and they will have to settle for that.
LOL! I tried this once when they called on the phone. They told me that if I didn't agree to turn myself in immediately there would be cops at my door in 5 min. I told them I was on my way, but on foot. I bailed out the back window, and sure enough the cops showed up looking for me. They told my roommate they had a warrant for me and were going to look around to see if I was there.
Anyways I don't know where you come up with some of this shit Stonehenge. If they have a warrant and know where you are they will come in and get you.
-FF
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: fastfred]
#12597544 - 05/20/10 11:28 AM (14 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Got any proof of that besides your usual life of crime stories? Interesting though they may be.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
All We Perceive
Sea Cucumber



Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 10,491
Last seen: 10 months, 22 days
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Stonehenge]
#12597888 - 05/20/10 12:43 PM (14 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Here's some proof ... from the US Supreme Court. Figure that's a legitimate enough source for you. The second case is somewhat cryptic so to be informed I would recommend actually reading it. I quoted pretty generously; however, I honestly skimmed them because they are both super long. In any event, I checked with some district courts and they seem to be in line with my quotes so it all seems right. It seems that indeed, Stonehenge, you lose.
You have an arrest warrant and you are in your own home: Payton v. New York 445 U.S. 573, 602-03 (1980).
Quote:
It is true that an arrest warrant requirement may afford less protection than a search warrant requirement, but it will suffice to interpose the magistrate's determination of probable cause between the zealous officer and the citizen. If there is sufficient evidence of a citizen's participation in a felony to persuade a judicial officer that his arrest is justified, it is constitutionally reason able to require him to open his doors to the officers of the law. Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.
But what if your house gets raided b/c the police have an arrest warrant for someone they believe to be at your residence? What are your rights? Steagald v. US 451 U.S. 204 (1981):
Quote:
Two days later, Goodowens and 11 other officers drove to the address supplied by the telephone company to search for Lyons [a felon w/ a warrant]. The officers observed two men standing outside the house to be searched. These men were Hoyt Gaultney and petitioner Gary Steagald. The officers approached with guns drawn, frisked both men, and, after demanding identification, determined that neither man was Lyons. Several **1645 agents proceeded to the house. Gaultney's wife answered the door, and informed the agents that she was alone in the house. She was told to place her hands against the wall and was guarded in that position while one agent searched the house. Ricky Lyons was not found, but during the search of the house the agent observed what he believed to be cocaine. Upon being informed of this discovery, Agent Goodowens sent an officer to obtain a search warrant and in the meantime conducted a second search of the house, which uncovered *207 additional incriminating evidence. During a third search conducted pursuant to a search warrant, the agents uncovered 43 pounds of cocaine. Petitioner was arrested and indicted on federal drug charges.
P206
Quote:
Prior to trial, petitioner moved to suppress all evidence uncovered during the various searches on the ground that it was illegally obtained because the agents had failed to secure a search warrant before entering the house. Agent Goodowens testified at the suppression hearing that there had been no “physical hinderance” preventing him from obtaining a search warrant and that he did not do so because he believed that the arrest warrant for Ricky Lyons was sufficient to justify the entry and search. The District Court agreed with this view, and denied the suppression motion. Petitioner was convicted, and renewed his challenge to the search in his appeal. A divided Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of petitioner's suppression motion. United States v. Gaultney, 606 F.2d 540 (1979). FN1 Because the issue presented by this case is an important one FN2 that has divided the Circuits,FN3 we granted certiorari. 449 U.S. 819, 101 S.Ct. 71, 66 L.Ed.2d 21.
p212 (ISSUE)
Quote:
Instead, the challenge to the search is asserted by a person not named in the warrant who was convicted on the basis of evidence uncovered during a search of his residence for Ricky **1648 Lyons. Thus, the narrow issue before us is whether an arrest warrant-as opposed to a search warrant-is adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant, when their homes are searched without their consent and in the absence of exigent circumstances.
p212-13
Quote:
[W]hile an arrest warrant and a search warrant both serve to subject the probable-cause determination of the police to judicial review, the interests protected by the two warrants differ. An arrest warrant is issued by a magistrate upon a showing that probable cause exists to believe that the subject of the warrant has committed an offense and thus the warrant primarily serves to protect an individual from an unreasonable seizure. A search warrant, in contrast is issued upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the legitimate object of a search is located in a particular place, and therefore safeguards an individual's interest in the privacy of his home and possessions against the unjustified intrusion of the police.
p215
Quote:
Moreover, an arrest warrant may serve as the pretext for entering a home in which the police have a suspicion, but not probable cause to believe, that illegal activity is taking place.
Quote:
Moreover, in those situations in which a search warrant is necessary, the inconvenience incurred by the police is simply not that significant. First, if the police know of the location of the felon when they obtain an arrest warrant, the additional burden of obtaining a search warrant at the same time is miniscule. The inconvenience **1653 of obtaining such a warrant does not increase significantly when an outstanding arrest warrant already exists. In this case, for example, Agent Goodowens knew the address of the house to be searched two days in advance, and planned the raid from the federal courthouse in Atlanta where, we are informed, three full-time magistrates were on duty. In routine search cases such as this, the short time required to obtain a search warrant from a magistrate will seldom hinder efforts to apprehend a felon. Finally, if a magistrate is not nearby, a telephonic search warrant can usually be obtained. See Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 41(c)(1), (2).
p222 THUS: Whatever practical problems remain, however, cannot outweigh the constitutional interests at stake. Any warrant requirement impedes to some extent the vigor with which the Government can seek to enforce its laws, yet the Fourth Amendment recognizes that this restraint is necessary in some cases to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. We conclude that this is such a case. The additional burden imposed on the police by a warrant requirement is minimal. In contrast, the right protected-that of presumptively innocent people to be secure in their homes from unjustified, forcible intrusions by the Government-is weighty. Thus, in order to render the instant search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant was required.
--------------------
"plus they atually think jambands are good or sumthing, so they clearly know absolutely nothing about music, clearly lol" -Bassfreak
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
|
AWP, OK, now that is a lot better. However, you have only shown that in cases in which certain felonies were committed and they knew the suspect was at home, then they had probable cause to enter. They issue warrants for a lot lesser things than that, for instance failure to appear, not paying a traffic ticket or even a parking ticket. Show me where they busted in with guns drawn on a parking ticket warrant or failure to pay a fine or something? I did not say that there were no circumstances under which they could come in with an arrest warrant. I simply stated that it did not give them automatic right to do so. And the situation will be different in each state depending on the circumstances. A minor felony may not allow them to enter or they may have to see the suspect and not just think he might be there.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
All We Perceive
Sea Cucumber



Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 10,491
Last seen: 10 months, 22 days
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Stonehenge]
#12598352 - 05/20/10 02:00 PM (14 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If there is sufficient evidence of a citizen's participation in a felony to persuade a judicial officer that his arrest is justified, it is constitutionally reason able to require him to open his doors to the officers of the law.
By its plain language, that says any felony. I'll look a bit more and see what I can find.
--------------------
"plus they atually think jambands are good or sumthing, so they clearly know absolutely nothing about music, clearly lol" -Bassfreak
Edited by All We Perceive (05/20/10 02:00 PM)
|
All We Perceive
Sea Cucumber



Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 10,491
Last seen: 10 months, 22 days
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Stonehenge]
#12598520 - 05/20/10 02:33 PM (14 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
State v. McKague, 143 Wash.App. 531, 540 (2008).
Quote:
[A]n arrest warrant-even for a misdemeanor-constitutes “authority of law” which allows the police the limited power to enter a residence for an arrest, as long as (1) the entry is reasonable, (2) the entry is not a pretext for conducting other unauthorized searches or investigations, (3) the police have probable cause to believe the person named in the arrest warrant is an actual resident of the home, and (4) said named person is actually present at the time of the entry.
Hatchie, 161 Wash.2d at 392-93, 166 P.3d 698 (alteration in original).
Ward v. Moore 414 F.3d 968, 971 (2005)
Quote:
A valid arrest warrant, whether for a felony or a misdemeanor, carries with it the authority to conduct a forcible entry so long as the police have a reasonable belief that the suspect resides at the place to be entered and is currently present there. See United States v. Clayton, 210 F.3d 841, 843-45 (8th Cir.2000).
U.S. v. Meindl 83 F.Supp.2d 1207 (1999).
Quote:
On December 28, 1998, two uniformed deputies with the Shawnee County Sheriff's Office, went to the defendant's residence at 2511 S.E. Michigan, Topeka, Kansas, to arrest him on a misdemeanor warrant issued by the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, in case No. 98TR004483, for driving while his license was suspended. The warrant showed that the district court had set a $2,500 personal surety bond. Unable to locate the defendant, the deputies did not execute the warrant, and they observed no evidence of the defendant being home.
[Police then enter through an open window the following day after noticing evidence indicating defendant was home]
I shall now quote at length.
Quote:
Arguments The defendant argues that the deputies executing the arrest warrant unlawfully entered his dwelling, that the police dog and officers inside the home exceeded the lawful scope of the arrest warrant, and that the subsequent search warrant does not validate the improper search and seizure. The government counters that the officers relied in good faith on the arrest warrant and did not act unlawfully in entering Meindl's home and looking for him. The government further responds that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, that the issuing judge did not abandon his judicial role in issuing it, and that the warrant did not lack particularity.
...
In Payton, the Supreme Court also decided that “an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within.” 445 U.S. at 603-04, 100 S.Ct. 1371. “ ‘Because an arrest warrant authorizes the police to deprive a person of his liberty, it necessarily also authorizes a limited invasion of that person's privacy interest when it is necessary to arrest him in his home.’ ” Valdez v. McPheters, 172 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir.1999) (quoting Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 214 n. 7, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981)). “Under Payton, police officers entering a residence pursuant to an arrest warrant must demonstrate a reasonable belief that the arrestee lived in the residence, and a reasonable belief FN1 that the arrestee could be found within the residence at the time of the entry.” Valdez, 172 F.3d at 1224 (citations omitted). “[T]he officers' assessment need not in fact be correct; rather, they need only ‘reasonably believe’ that the suspect resides at the dwelling to be searched and is currently present at the dwelling.” United States v. Risse, 83 F.3d 212, 216 (8th Cir.1996) (citations omitted); see Valdez, 172 F.3d at 1225. “ ‘The facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the law enforcement agents, when viewed in the totality, must warrant a reasonable belief that the location to be searched is the suspect's dwelling, and that the suspect is within the residence at the time of entry.’ ” Valdez, 172 F.3d at 1224 (quoting United States v. Magluta, 44 F.3d 1530, 1535 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 869, 116 S.Ct. 189, 133 L.Ed.2d 126 (1995)).
FN1. “While probable cause itself is a relatively low threshold of proof, it is a higher standard than ‘reasonable belief’, which is, as everyone agrees, the appropriate standard.” Valdez v. McPheters, 172 F.3d 1220, 1227 n. 5 (10th Cir.1999) (citation omitted).
The undisputed evidence establishes the officers went to a house that was the defendant's residence to execute the arrest warrant. The evidence also establishes that the officers had a reasonable basis at the time for believing that the defendant was home. In evaluating this factor of the Payton test, “ ‘courts must be sensitive to common sense factors indicating a resident's presence.’ ” Valdez 172 F.3d at 1226 (quoting *1213 United States v. Magluta, 44 F.3d at 1535). When the deputies arrived at the residence on December 29, 1998, they observed, unlike the previous day, that security lights were operating outside and a television was operating inside. The “operation of lights or other electrical devices” may suggest a suspect's presence. Valdez, 172 F.3d at 1226. From their experience in serving a different arrest warrant on the defendant just two weeks earlier, the deputies knew the defendant could consider concealing himself inside. “Indeed, the officers may take into account the fact that a person involved in criminal activity may be attempting to conceal his whereabouts.” Valdez, 172 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted). Even though no one answered the door when they knocked, the officers reasonably believed the defendant was hiding inside and did not want to acknowledge the uniformed officers who had driven up in marked patrol cars.
The defendant does not dispute the validity of the arrest warrant nor challenge the probable cause underlying it.FN2 The defendant, however, does assert that an arrest warrant for a misdemeanor, as opposed to a felony, does not authorize officers to enter a dwelling for the purpose of executing the warrant. The defendant cites only one case, O'Rourke v. City of Norman, 875 F.2d 1465, 1468 n. 7 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 918, 110 S.Ct. 280, 107 L.Ed.2d 260 (1989), as having mentioned any such distinction. The government's brief goes no further than to cite Kansas statutes and case law regarding a law enforcement officer's general authority under state law in executing arrest warrants.FN3
...
The contention that the rule as stated in Payton applies to arrest warrants for felonies only and not misdemeanors has been raised in several courts and always rejected. In United States v. Spencer, 684 F.2d 220 (2nd Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1109, 103 S.Ct. 738, 74 L.Ed.2d 960 (1983), officers in executing a bench warrant issued for an unrelated misdemeanor charge entered the defendant's dwelling in his absence and legally seized evidence found during their search for him. The defendant Spencer argued that Payton only permitted non-consensual entrances pursuant to a felony arrest warrant. The Second Circuit was not persuaded:
Payton makes clear that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are protected by interposing a neutral magistrate “between the zealous officer and the citizen.” Id. at 602, 100 S.Ct. 1371.
.... [T]he police, armed with the warrant, had authority to find and seize Spencer anywhere they could find him for his failure to appear in court [in connection with misdemeanor charges on which he had previously been arraigned]. Thus, presence of the police in the defendant's room was pursuant to a direction made by a neutral magistrate. Defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment require no more. (citations omitted).
.... While both cases [ Payton and United States v. Reed, 572 F.2d 412 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 913, 99 S.Ct. 283, 58 L.Ed.2d 259 (1978) ] concededly involved felony arrests, neither holding limits legal entrance only to felony cases. Significantly, in the more recent case of Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642, 68 L.Ed.2d 38 (1981), the Court, in referring to Payton, placed no limitation on the kind of crime with which the suspect must be charged. In these cases, the courts, in striving to safeguard a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights when he is arrested at home, emphasized the necessity that a warrant be issued by a neutral magistrate. The concern has been to present the unreasonable seizure of a person or property. In determining reasonableness, the nature of the underlying offense is of no moment.
Defendant seems to argue that we should grant a misdemeanor suspect blanket protection from arrest while such person remains at home. The maxim that “a man's home is his castle” has come to us from the early English common law through the corridors of time. The ancestry of this concept and its significance in our constitutional history are thoroughly explored in Payton, 445 U.S. at 591-98, 100 S.Ct. 1371. The discussion makes clear that the threshold of one's home, however, is not a boundary-like the Yalu River-beyond which a suspect has inviolate sanctuary. Instead this defendant, subject to the outstanding bench warrant, is not insulated by Payton from being arrested in his home, as long as the police had reason to believe he was there.
*1215 684 F.2d at 223-24. Thus, the court found that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the seizure of evidence from his closet when officers in executing a misdemeanor arrest warrant searched his apartment for him. Id. at 224.
More recently, a federal district court confronted this same issue and relied on Spencer for its conclusion. Smith v. Tolley, 960 F.Supp. 977, 989-92 (E.D.Va.1997). The court noted that the Supreme Court in Payton and Welch had “recognized a distinction between felonies and misdemeanors in the context of warrantless arrests in a suspect's dwelling.” 960 F.Supp. at 990. Like the Second Circuit, the district court keyed on the language in Payton that an arrest warrant is sufficient protection by “ ‘interpos[ing] the magistrate's determination of probable cause between the zealous officer and the citizen.’ ” 960 F.Supp. at 991 (quoting Payton, 445 U.S. at 602-03, 100 S.Ct. 1371). “Once that judicial approval was given, it makes no federal, constitutional difference that the warrant was issued in the form of a bench warrant for failure to appear on a misdemeanor offense, as opposed to a felony offense.” Id. (footnote omitted).
Other federal courts have had no difficulty finding a lawful entry by officers in execution of misdemeanor arrest warrants. Kain v. Nesbitt, 156 F.3d 669, 670, 672 (6th Cir.1998) (misdemeanor arrest warrant for traffic offenses authorized officers to forcibly enter the residence and arrest the person named in the warrant); United States v. Albrektsen, 151 F.3d 951, 953-54 (9th Cir.1998) (misdemeanor arrest warrants authorize entry into dwelling if necessary to secure arrest); Lyles v. City of Barling, 17 F.Supp.2d 848, 851 855-56 (W.D.Ark.1998), aff'd, 181 F.3d 914 (8th Cir.1999); Hunter v. Smith, 1996 WL 426541, at *2 (E.D.Mich. Feb.2, 1996) (bench warrants are within the Payton rule), aff'd, 110 F.3d 64, 1997 WL 144194 (6th Cir. Mar. 27, 1997) (Table). State courts also have refused to distinguish between felony and misdemeanor arrest warrants upholding officers' entry into dwellings in the execution of misdemeanor arrest warrants. See, e.g., State v. Coma, 133 Idaho 29, 981 P.2d 754, 756-57 (Idaho Ct.App.1999); People v. LeBlanc, 60 Cal.App.4th 157, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 198-99 (1997); Archer v. Com., 26 Va.App. 1, 492 S.E.2d 826, 831 (Va.App.1997); cf. People v. O'Hearn, 931 P.2d 1168, 1174 n. 7 (Colo.1997)
The weight of authority persuades the court that Payton is not limited to the execution of felony arrest warrants and that officers serving a misdemeanor arrest warrant have the limited authority to enter a suspect's residence when the officer reasonably believes the suspect is present. Having found that the deputies here reasonably believed the defendant was present, the court concludes the deputies lawfully made a forced entry into the defendant's dwelling.
Edited by All We Perceive (05/20/10 02:46 PM)
|
All We Perceive
Sea Cucumber



Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 10,491
Last seen: 10 months, 22 days
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Stonehenge]
#12598537 - 05/20/10 02:37 PM (14 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Also, might I take the time to specifically point out ->
Quote:
Kain v. Nesbitt, 156 F.3d 669, 670, 672 (6th Cir.1998) (misdemeanor arrest warrant for traffic offenses authorized officers to forcibly enter the residence and arrest the person named in the warrant);
--------------------
"plus they atually think jambands are good or sumthing, so they clearly know absolutely nothing about music, clearly lol" -Bassfreak
|
All We Perceive
Sea Cucumber



Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 10,491
Last seen: 10 months, 22 days
|
|
Quote:
All We Perceive said: Also, might I take the time to specifically point out ->
Quote:
Kain v. Nesbitt, 156 F.3d 669, 670, 672 (6th Cir.1998) (misdemeanor arrest warrant for traffic offenses authorized officers to forcibly enter the residence and arrest the person named in the warrant);
Sorry if that was a bit over the top. I like practicing my research skillz
--------------------
"plus they atually think jambands are good or sumthing, so they clearly know absolutely nothing about music, clearly lol" -Bassfreak
|
Anonymous #1
|
|
i had cops come to my place (where multiple people lived) when i had a warrant, it was pretty obvious people were home but not that i specifically was home(not like my car was out front or he saw me going in/peering through the window.) the cop beat on the front door hard as shit for about 5 mins, screaming "police open up, mr.(myname) open the door, we know you're in there" he went around back and started shining his flashlight into the windows (nighttime) he POUNDED HARD on this back sliding glass door, so hard i was surprised it didn't break. he went to a back door and twisted the knob (it was locked) then left. they came back a couple times, but were never near as aggressive.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: Stonehenge]
#12598603 - 05/20/10 02:44 PM (14 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: I did not say that there were no circumstances under which they could come in with an arrest warrant. I simply stated that it did not give them automatic right to do so.
Quote:
Stonehenge said: If they have an ordinary arrest warrant they can't come in even if they know you are home.
... An arrest warrant without a search warrant or no knock warrant does not allow them to come in and grab you. You can say you will give yourself up the next day at the police station and they will have to settle for that.
Foot in mouth again Stonehead.
What's bad about your advice is that you're giving the wrong impression of the law in fairly strong and certain language. If you don't know what you're talking about then just don't post on the matter.
If you have a warrant out you are a fugitive from the law. If officers know you are in a building they have probable cause that the owner is harboring a fugitive and/or the right to pursue your apprehension. This is plenty of reason to immediately enter the residence to apprehend the fugitive.
You don't ever see fugitives running into a house and then the cops have to stop at the door and obtain a warrant before they can follow. That would be patently absurd.
The second case might not be that relevant to the topic. I didn't read the case but I didn't see anything in the quotes to indicate the probable cause to believe the person was in the residence. It may have been weak or only suspicion. It also seems that they only used the warrant as a pretext to enter because they believed they'd find cocaine or other crimes inside.
-FF
|
All We Perceive
Sea Cucumber



Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 10,491
Last seen: 10 months, 22 days
|
Re: Not answering the door [Re: fastfred]
#12598647 - 05/20/10 02:51 PM (14 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
That is correct. Found it while I was paroozing around the databases and is not really that on topic. Just figured it might be useful to someone wondering about the limitations of police to enter 3rd party residences to apprehend an individual with an arrest warrant. At least it can be helpful to point someone in the right direction wishing to know more about it. The case is long as hell and couldn't in good conscience post it here.
--------------------
"plus they atually think jambands are good or sumthing, so they clearly know absolutely nothing about music, clearly lol" -Bassfreak
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
|
Fred you are a jackass. I will not answer you again or read any of your posts. If we have an ignore feature here i will surely put you on it.
AWP, that is nice but even the stuff you quoted has caveats attached. It does not say that if they have a warrant, any type of warrant under any circumstances they can come busting in. Only under the right circumstances and it will vary from state to state and will depend. If the police had blanket authority to bust in any time they had a warrant, don't you think they would do it? As the post by anon showed, they often don't. And it's not because they didn't feel like flexing their cop muscles and beating up some hippies. They love doing that but can't always do it.
I can quote cases in which they came to the door and told the person who identified themselves and the cops just left because he would not surrender right then and there. Does that prove they can never do it? No, but you can't say they can always do it either.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
|