Warrantless Searches

[All American Nightmare]

Why don't you read it again. What I posted is in red.

Now I'm calling you out Novacop!

 

[NovaCop]

Now I'm calling you out Novacop!

Calling me out about what exactly? You want me to respond about your remarks about calling police "power hungry cops" and speaking about "contempt of cop"? I guess I will respond then (sigh to this childish game).

I already stated previously (hopefully you are bright enough to have read my previous), that I disagree with the entry into the safe w/out a warrant. However, I merely stated that at face value it cannot be determined that the entry onto the property, detainment of the man, and security sweep of the house was illegal. Protective sweeps are legal in VA and there are numerous case laws to support it (since I like to back my legal opinions, I will just point out one major case law Verez v. Commonwealth). You can't Monday morning quarterback their actions, however, it's what those officers truly believe (and can articulate) at that moment to make entry. Once again, I don't believe the search of the safe was good, but I guess the courts can decide. Since this man was found guilty I am guessing that I was correct that the actions were legal. If you were correct, he wouldn't have been prosecuted because the state attorney would most likely not bring an illegal case before the court.

I also based my opinion on the grounds that we don't know...
1. Who called in (their credibility) and what was said.
2. What information the officers knew or perceived was going on
3. We don't know the laws in that jurisdiction

I am obviously pro-police and give them the benefit of doubt in most cases. This is not to be confused with providing excuses for bad police, which I would like removed just as much as you. It's just a very difficult and dangerous job that requires split second decisions by humans and a job that is 100% necessary in our society... so of course, mistakes will be made.

I understand that you don't like police from your numerous posts. I would hope you are smart enough to realize their importance in maintaining our society. Good policing videos don't make youtube or make it into the media. It's the 1% of police videos that depict bad or questionable behavior that you seem to depict your opinion about LEOs on.

I hope you achieved what you wanted by "calling out NovaCop".

PS. Jonesy, I think I answered your question in this post. We don't know what the police perceived was was in the house, but if there were exigent circumstances, they could make entry. I believe they thought something serious was going on since numerous officers went priority response to that house with guns drawn (which is very abnormal). I can only guess it was legal since the arrest was upheld.

 

[All American Nightmare]

Calling me out about what exactly? You want me to respond about your remarks about calling police "power hungry cops" and speaking about "contempt of cop"? I guess I will respond then (sigh to this childish game).

I already stated previously (hopefully you are bright enough to have read my previous), that I disagree with the entry into the safe w/out a warrant. However, I merely stated that at face value it cannot be determined that the entry onto the property, detainment of the man, and security sweep of the house was illegal. Protective sweeps are legal in VA and there are numerous case laws to support it (since I like to back my legal opinions, I will just point out one major case law Verez v. Commonwealth). You can't Monday morning quarterback their actions, however, it's what those officers truly believe (and can articulate) at that moment to make entry. Once again, I don't believe the search of the safe was good, but I guess the courts can decide. Since this man was found guilty I am guessing that I was correct that the actions were legal. If you were correct, he wouldn't have been prosecuted because the state attorney would most likely not bring an illegal case before the court.

I also based my opinion on the grounds that we don't know...
1. Who called in (their credibility) and what was said.
2. What information the officers knew or perceived was going on
3. We don't know the laws in that jurisdiction

I am obviously pro-police and give them the benefit of doubt in most cases. This is not to be confused with providing excuses for bad police, which I would like removed just as much as you. It's just a very difficult and dangerous job that requires split second decisions by humans and a job that is 100% necessary in our society... so of course, mistakes will be made.

I understand that you don't like police from your numerous posts. I would hope you are smart enough to realize their importance in maintaining our society. Good policing videos don't make youtube or make it into the media. It's the 1% of police videos that depict bad or questionable behavior that you seem to depict your opinion about LEOs on.

I hope you achieved what you wanted by "calling out NovaCop".

PS. Jonesy, I think I answered your question in this post. We don't know what the police perceived was was in the house, but if there were exigent circumstances, they could make entry. I believe they thought something serious was going on since numerous officers went priority response to that house with guns drawn (which is very abnormal). I can only guess it was legal since the arrest was upheld.

I called you out on your post about your qoute on me.Anyone want to know what novacop looks like? I think this picture is him. PS I do whatever I want last I checked we still live in a free country not a police state. If I was going to call you out I would have made it so a blind person could see it. I wish you were smart enough to understand a right is not granted by the Gooberment. If you want a link to that post let me know! The bill of rights does not change from state to state. (by the way) IMAGE REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: LEO Bashing is not allowed here

 

[peter nap]

I called you out on your post about your qoute on me.Anyone want to know what novacop looks like? I think this picture is him. PS I do whatever I want last I checked we still live in a free country not a police state. If I was going to call you out I would have made it so a blind person could see it. I wish you were smart enough to understand a right is not granted by the Gooberment. If you want a link to that post let me know! The bill of rights does not change from state to state. (by the way)IMAGE REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: LEO Bashing is not allowed here

That's worth taking him off of ignore!:lol: (For a short time}

 

[All American Nightmare]

I apologize that I didn't comment on this post earlier, as it was a direct attack on me (by calling me out using my name). I'm sure XDM wanted me to respond to his remarks by doing so, so to make him happy..

Well, as I mentioned above, I didn't agree with their legal tactics after a certain point of securing the man and his residence. It seemed completely legal up to that point in my opinion. With that said, I disagree with Mr. XDM (internet lawyer) on some points.

Why would the man in the video have to tell the cops they need RAS before they could search? He has NO idea what the police were told when they were responding to the scene and the police usually aren't going to share their RAS with you. You don't know what intelligence was gathered, nor do I . I venture to guess they honestly believed they had something serious going on since there were multiple officers dispatched going priority (lights/sirens).

I see in your post you believe the man should have stated "arrest me now or go away"? Do you understand the simple legal standing of being detained for RAS but not arrested (Terry). Detained to determine if a crime took place, but that doesn't mean you are under arrest. Nor would the police have to "arrest him or go away" hahahahahahahaha. That is 4th amendment class 101.

Wait, wait, you contradict yourself.... so he should have told them they need RAS and asked questions, or he should have asked for a lawyer and remained silent? You can't do both. You sound like an ignorant internet poster with NO formal legal training or experience...am I wrong? If I am wrong, we would all like you to share what formal training, education, and/or experience you have. That is not an attack on you, it's merely pointing out that you aren't USER and shouldn't post legal standings unless you want to use cites. I don't post up legal stuff that I know nothing about unless I back it with laws. You continue to do so which poorly gives misguided information to visitors of the site and reflects badly upon yourself.

In my earlier post I agreed that the police crossed the line towards the end, where they went into a locked safe. XDM seems to think they crossed the line when they went to the property, which I disagree. If he wants to prove that, I will allow him to explain how they crossed the line explaining what laws they crossed and how.

PS...funny that the administrator had to call out XDM because he changes words when quoting others.

This is why I called you out. If those cops were frightened that much why are they cops in the first place? I posted nothing legal just my thoughts. If I changed another mans words It was a honest mistake. I never said they crosed the line by going to the property you did. How much longer do I have to be nice to him? My tounge is starting to hurt.

 

[Marco]

Hmmmmm. .

me thinks you're getting stuck on the open fields, we are taking about a backyard (1.78 acres) not open farmland.

So, I guess there is more for me to learn.

That goes for all of us, when you stop learning, you're dead.

Although this rule pretty much covers it:

Some cops is gonna go where ever they want, whenever they want and let a judge sort it out later. And, plenty of judges will use a results-oriented basis for deciding--meaning there is a reasonable chance the judge will find a creative way to twist the law in support of the copses.

I agree with this.

Some of my comments removed, so I'm not the cause of getting this thread closed.
Comments not directed at the person I quoted

 

[peter nap]

How much longer do I have to be nice to him? My tounge is starting to hurt.

I didn't say you had to be nice to him. No one else is. That would be a crime against nature:uhoh:

I just took him off of ignore to hear him whine about being abused.

 

[NovaCop]

This is why I called you out. If those cops were frightened that much why are they cops in the first place? I posted nothing legal just my thoughts. If I changed another mans words It was a honest mistake. I never said they crosed the line by going to the property you did. How much longer do I have to be nice to him? My tounge is starting to hurt.

Cops can't be scared? I think it's more like being cautious. Nice drawing, did you learn that last year in 10th grade?

What did I say that you don't agree with? I know you have to fall back on personal insults because you can't form any rational input into a debate.

 

[peter nap]

What did I say that you don't agree with? I know you have to fall back on personal insults because you can't form any rational input into a debate.

I just took him off of ignore to hear him whine about being abused.

Told ya!:banana:

 

[peter nap]

XD...I just sent you a "Wanna Bet" PM.

 

[wylde007]

Told ya!:banana:

Yep. Right on schedule.

Say, is it just me or does the "View Post" button under blocked names not function properly anymore for anyone?

 

[peter nap]

Yep. Right on schedule.

Say, is it just me or does the "View Post" button under blocked names not function properly anymore for anyone?

Nope, it doesn't work anymore. That'swhy I had to take him off of ignore but he's going right back after I win my bet!:lol:

 

[wylde007]

That's why I had to take him off of ignore but he's going right back after I win my bet!:lol:

Must be one heck of a payout.

Like five bucks or something! :monkey

 

[peter nap]

Must be one heck of a payout.

Like five bucks or something! :monkey

 

[Repeater]

Are you guys still beating this dead horse? Boring.

For something more entertaining, consider this:

Can You Handle the Truth? The Framers Preserved Common-Law Arrest and Search Rules in 'Due Process of Law'--'Fourth Amendment Reasonableness' is Only a Modern, Destructive, Judicial Myth by Thomas Y. Davies, 43 Texas Tech L. Rev. 51 (2010).

Abstract:

The conventional academic account of Fourth Amendment (or search and seizure) history has been shaped by uncritcal acceptance of claims in Supreme Court opinions that the reference to "unreasonable searches and seizures" in that text was intended to created a broad "reasonableness" standard for assessing all government arrests and searches, whether made with or without warrant. This article marshals salient evidence from the author’s more detailed prior articles to demonstrate that this claim is merely a prochronistic myth that grossly understates the criminal procedure standards the American Framers thought they had preserved.

The article first describes the actual common-law standards for criminal arrests and related searches to show that mere "reasonableness" was never recognized as a standard in framing-era sources. It also documents that the accusatory common-law criminal arrest standards were actually understood to be salient features of the "law of the land" and "due process of law" protections set out in other constitutional provisions, and that criminal search authority was essentially an appendage of arrest authority. Thus there was neither room nor reason for the Fourth Amendment to address warrantless arrests or searches, or even criminal arrest warrants. Rather, the only unsettled search issue at the time of the framing was the scope of legislative authority regarding revenue search warrants, so the Fourth Amendment was framed simply to ban Congress from authorizing use of too-loose warrants for revenue searches of houses, while the Fifth Amendment due process of law clause preserved criminal procedure standards. (Along the way, the article identifies deficiencies in recent historical claims by Professors Fabio Arcila (notes 122, 204) and Thomas Clancy (note 225).)

The article then describes how nineteenth century judges destroyed the original understanding of due process of law and thus left federal Supreme Court justices free to reinvent modern "search and seizure" doctrine under the Fourth Amendment, to invent the concept of Fourth Amendment reasonableness in the 1925 Carroll decision to justify warrantless searches where lawful arrests could not be made, and more recently to exploit the flexible character of reasonableness to effectively create discretionary police arrest and search authority comparable to that conferred by the general warrant which the original Fourth Amendment was meant to abolish.

This bold law review article alleges that modern Fourth Amendment law is all wrong and affords law enforcement with entirely too much power to do as they please.

For example, beginning on page 81, the author declares that "there was no warrantless arrest authority at all for most minor offenses. Instead, they were to be dealt with by issuance of a summons to appear before a magistrate." Further, there is no warrantless search authority absent an arrest warrant.

Later, starting on page 131, there's this:

In an opinion that set something of a record for amassing fraudulent historical claims, Justice Souter‟s Atwater opinion ran roughshod over the framing-era distinction between “breaches of the peace” and petty offenses433 in order to justify the custodial arrest, complete with handcuffs, of a housewife for the offense of failing to use a seatbelt while driving slowly on a suburban street.

...

The justices, moreover, did not stop with Atwater. In the 2009 Roberts Court ruling in Virginia v. Moore, the justices unanimously ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits an arrest whenever officers have probable cause that an offense of some kind was committed—even if there was no legal authority for an arrest for that offense because the local law that defined the offense provided only for the issuance of a summons. Justice Scalia‟s opinion explained that probable cause suffices for Fourth Amendment reasonableness because it is the only requisite for a constitutional arrest; hence, any additional state law requisites for a lawful warrantless arrest are irrelevant for purposes of determining the constitutionality of the arrest.

Remarkably, Moore ignored the Court‟s prior understanding, reiterated in a number of cases, that constitutional searches made incident to arrest depended on the lawfulness of the arrest and instead admitted evidence seized in a search made incident to the constitutional but illegal arrest. Thus, Moore effectively created a new search-incident-to-illegal-arrest exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement. Moreover, the analysis in Moore would even appear to have terminated—at least as a matter of federal constitutional law—the long-standing and genuinely historical rule that warrantless arrests for less-than-felony offenses are limited to ongoing offenses witnessed by the arresting officer.

Understandably, Justice Scalia did not attempt to offer historical support for these bizarre statist claims. Rather, he opined that there was no need to revisit that subject because the Court had already dealt with the relevant history in Atwater. Thus, Atwater‟s fraudulent originalism became settled history as stare decisis! The justices are not confined to revising the Constitution; they also rewrite its history and declare the matter settled!

Whoa. Interesting reading. Maybe you can learn something. Let's see ...

Openly Carrying a handgun in Virginia is neither a felony nor a "breach of peace" therefore such a Virginian should never be subjected to a custodial arrest or a warrantless search.

But this is not modern fourth amendment law. According to Professor Davies, that is because the courts have destroyed the Founding-era understanding of the Fourth Amendment.

Basically, we're screwed.

 

[Jonesy]

Calling me out about what exactly? You want me to respond about your remarks about calling police "power hungry cops" and speaking about "contempt of cop"? I guess I will respond then (sigh to this childish game).

I already stated previously (hopefully you are bright enough to have read my previous), that I disagree with the entry into the safe w/out a warrant. However, I merely stated that at face value it cannot be determined that the entry onto the property, detainment of the man, and security sweep of the house was illegal. Protective sweeps are legal in VA and there are numerous case laws to support it (since I like to back my legal opinions, I will just point out one major case law Verez v. Commonwealth). You can't Monday morning quarterback their actions, however, Once again, I don't believe the search of the safe was good, but I guess the courts can decide. Since this man was found guilty I am guessing that I was correct that the actions were legal. If you were correct, he wouldn't have been prosecuted because the state attorney would most likely not bring an illegal case before the court.

I also based my opinion on the grounds that we don't know...
1. Who called in (their credibility) and what was said.
2. What information the officers knew or perceived was going on
3. We don't know the laws in that jurisdiction

I am obviously pro-police and give them the benefit of doubt in most cases. This is not to be confused with providing excuses for bad police, which I would like removed just as much as you. It's just a very difficult and dangerous job that requires split second decisions by humans and a job that is 100% necessary in our society... so of course, mistakes will be made.

I understand that you don't like police from your numerous posts. I would hope you are smart enough to realize their importance in maintaining our society. Good policing videos don't make youtube or make it into the media. It's the 1% of police videos that depict bad or questionable behavior that you seem to depict your opinion about LEOs on.

I hope you achieved what you wanted by "calling out NovaCop".

PS. Jonesy, I think I answered your question in this post. We don't know what the police perceived was was in the house, but if there were exigent circumstances, they could make entry. I believe they thought something serious was going on since numerous officers went priority response to that house with guns drawn (which is very abnormal). I can only guess it was legal since the arrest was upheld.

Now I am calling out NOVACOP. Your statements show such a misunderstanding of the law and basic criminal procedure that I question wheteher you are really an officer. If you are, I fear for Nova.

Your conclusions seem ridiculous based on the facts observable from the videos. This is why you have about zero credability with most on this board. We have a man found to be target shooting on his own property when the police arrive. They secure him and search the property and find he is shooting at targets, and there are no nearby houses. At this point they should release him and leave.

The Va case you cite to is one which had real exigent circumstances of a dangerous drug dealer possibly armed and with evidence that could be destroyed, it is amazing that you cannot tell the difference, that case has no applicabilty to these facts. What facts do you see in the video to tell you exigent circumstances exist? I sure as heck don't see any, all I see is the officer say "Okay, what an *******. I think we need to go in and clear the house." A man target shooting outside requires them to go in and clear the house? Why can't they get a warrant first?

Then after the search the 2nd video has the officers trying to manufacture exigency. They better hope they don't get in front of a federal judge.

If they were inside the dwelling when they secured this man, a protective sweep of the dwelling would likely be legal. But they had no objective reason to enter the dwelling, much less the safe. There was no reason they could not go and get a warrant, what would immenently happen? Exigent circumstances requires particular facts that an immediate warrantless search was necessary, not unparticularized suspicions or hunches.

Then you say "it's what those officers truly believe (and can articulate) at that moment to make entry." This is an inaccurate statement of the law. The standard is one of objective reasonableness, what would a reasonable officer believe under the circumstances, not what these officers thought. Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) 547 U.S. 398, 404.

Then you state "Since this man was found guilty I am guessing that I was correct that the actions were legal. If you were correct, he wouldn't have been prosecuted because the state attorney would most likely not bring an illegal case before the court."

First, he pled to a lesser misdemeanor charge facing several felonies. So there was no trial, and the search was almost certainly not examined for constitutionality, which I would think any officer would or should know. And to suggest a state attorney would not bring charges with a search being very questionable is so ridiculous to make me question whether you are even an officer, this is a fairly common thing, searches are often thrown out as illegal after charges are brought. For you to suggest otherwise is a joke.

Now if you are an officer, maybe you could educate yourself on things like exigenct circumstances so you dont abuse citizens constitutional rights.

 

[All American Nightmare]

Cops can't be scared? I think it's more like being cautious. Nice drawing, did you learn that last year in 10th grade?

What did I say that you don't agree with? I know you have to fall back on personal insults because you can't form any rational input into a debate.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: LEO Bashing

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Can You Handle the Truth? The Framers Preserved Common-Law Arrest and Search Rules in 'Due Process of Law'--'Fourth Amendment Reasonableness' is Only a Modern, Destructive, Judicial Myth by Thomas Y. Davies, 43 Texas Tech L. Rev. 51 (2010).

Wow!! Thanks, Repeater!

Suddenly I want to read more by that author. But, for some reason I cannot download the article. When I click on the button "one-click download" I momentarily get four new buttons, then they disappear, the screen blinks, and I'm back to the first screen.

Frack!

ETA: Oops. Sorry. All it needed was for me to allow cookies. Got the article now.

 

[All American Nightmare]

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: LEO Bashing

Thats Novacop bashing not LEO bashing!


..........--From Moderator--
Then it is a personal attack. That is in the same rule.
This NOT a topic open for discussion.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc).

Talk about the problem or the event NOT the person(s)

 

[Citizen]

Thats Novacop bashing not LEO bashing!

You gotta choose your words carefully. Not necessarily diplomatically, just carefully to avoid running afoul of Rule #6:

(6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc)... (red emphasis added by Citizen).

I'm not saying you should hold off rhetorically beating the stuffing out of Novacop. I'm saying you must construct your sentences and use words that avoid violating Rule #6. With just a little effort you will discover you still have lots and lots of lattitude to show him for the statist boob he his without once even coming close to violating Rule #6.