|
Post by pete1 on Jul 27, 2009 22:54:09 GMT -4
Since the incident with the Professor & the Cop I have heard several citizens describe the following.......Home owner accidentally sets off his home alarm system. Police arrive, the owner identifies himself, and explains the situation. Police say it's their procedure to search the house, and proceed to look in every room, and cupboard without permission from the owner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2009 23:41:03 GMT -4
What happens if the cop takes what the person says at the door as the truth while all this time it was a home invasion with their child being held inside with a knife to their throat. Error on the side of caution just to be sure.
If the homeowner created the false alarm, that's the inconvenience you might have to put up with. Besides, there are procedures in place just for this reason usually requiring the homeowner to notify the alarm company and provide a password canceling the call.
|
|
|
Post by foofighter on Jul 27, 2009 23:43:18 GMT -4
If the officer asks permission, as in: 'you dont mind if I have a look around, just in case right?' and you say 'sure' or 'ok' or 'please do' then you have consented to search and given up your fourth amendment right.
So if the officer did not ask permission, and searches anyways?? call the ACLU, the DA, and the local news. That is not a legal search.... yet... -DG
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jul 28, 2009 0:48:21 GMT -4
footfighter..........You hit the nail on the head especially with the word yet.
mj.....In your WHAT IF scenario of a home invasion the police need probable cause to believe that a felony is being or about to be committed in the house. WHAT IF the government puts T.V. cameras in everybody's house to make sure we are good little boys & girls. Also, the cops can enter a home without a warrant on any life or death situation, but he needs to be sure first.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jul 28, 2009 7:01:45 GMT -4
"What if" scenarios and "Its for your own good" are often the reasons given for very bad legislation.
Are there really that many people who were sick the day they covered the constitution and the reasons behind it in school? And why do those people keep getting elected to office?
|
|
|
Post by jetdoc on Jul 28, 2009 7:20:24 GMT -4
Since the incident with the Professor & the Cop I have heard several citizens describe the following.......Home owner accidentally sets off his home alarm system. Police arrive, the owner identifies himself, and explains the situation. Police say it's their procedure to search the house, and proceed to look in every room, and cupboard without permission from the owner. How does the owner "identify" who they are in this situation?
|
|
|
Post by bozeman101 on Jul 28, 2009 8:49:06 GMT -4
Let em search. What do you care unless you've got something to hide? If it takes 1 out of 100 searches like that to put one bad guy away, its worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jul 28, 2009 8:49:59 GMT -4
It seems to me if you are paying for additional security for your home, you are asking for additional protection. Search the home, insure it is safe. If you don't want that degree of security, use an audible alarm only, or simply dial 911 when you want help.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jul 28, 2009 10:45:55 GMT -4
If in the contract you signed, you consented to a search if an alarm was tripped, then I have no problem with them coming in.
However, if the owner consented to no such searches, then he should have the right to refuse when the police come knocking on the door.
99 innocent people with their rights infringed upon to catch 1 bad guy is not a good ratio for America. There are few things that really get under my skin like hearing that tired old phrase "if you've got nothing to hide then it shouldn't matter". If I were your civics/political science/whatever your school called it teacher, I'd have flunked you.
|
|
|
Post by shoreterp on Jul 28, 2009 11:19:48 GMT -4
If there are signs of forced entry he can go in and take a look around, if not, he can ask permission of the homeowner to look around.
If the home owner fails to identify himself properly (with I.D.) the officer can go in and look around.
I had this happen to me when my son called 911 and hung up. The officer showed up and said they got a 911 hangup. I identified myself as the homeowner and explained that my son's kindergarten class had just had an officer come in and explain 911 and what to do in an emergency. He said that happens all the time but still asked if he could come in and do a quick look around. I had no problem with that and let him in and that was that.
|
|
|
Post by shoregurrl on Jul 28, 2009 13:25:23 GMT -4
I don't think they are legally entitled to look around; however, I might not have a problem consenting to them taking a look around meaning looking in the shower and closets for possible "bad guys" hiding in wait. I WOULD have a problem with them opening up every cupboard and drawer - if there's a "bad guy" hiding in one of those small places, I am confident I could take 'em.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jul 28, 2009 15:42:27 GMT -4
How do the police know if you are the homeowner if you cannot prove it? Why would you argue with them? What would keep an intruder from just telling the police "Yeah, I'm the homeowner, now beat it!" Why would the alarm be going off if you were the homeowner? Wouldn't you want the police to investigate if you got a call your alarm was going off and you were at the beach? Too many unanswered questions to make definitive decisions.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jul 28, 2009 20:17:36 GMT -4
It takes a warrant or an invitation to get into my house. If my alarm is going off and an officer comes to my door then I would be prepared to identify myself. If my alarm is not going off and an officer comes to my door then he can wait.
I can't imagine a situation where I would sign away my right to refuse entry to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jul 30, 2009 2:15:27 GMT -4
My Friends.......Is there anyone out there who hasn't broken into their own home, car, or accidentally set their burglar alarm off? It's not against the law to break into your own home. Maybe suspicious, but not illegal.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jul 30, 2009 3:33:42 GMT -4
My Friends.......Is there anyone out there who hasn't broken into their own home, car, or accidentally set their burglar alarm off? It's not against the law to break into your own home. Maybe suspicious, but not illegal. I have not broken into my own home, car, or accidentally set off my burglar alarm. But that isn't the point at all. It wouldn't be illegal if I broke into my own house and it wasn't illegal for Gates to break into his. It would be suspicious if I broke into my house and it was suspicious when Gates broke into his. I would hope my neighbors would alert the authorities if they saw someone they didn't recognize breaking into my house (they wouldn't recognize me) and Gates' neighbor alerted the authorities when she saw someone she didn't recognize breaking into his house (she didn't recognize him). Up to this point Gates and I have a lot in common. Things diverge at the moment the officer knocks on the door. Gates chose to play the role of the angry black man who is being harassed by the police because of his race. I would choose a different course. I would not invite the officer into the house but, as I've written before, I would recognize the situation and not take offense to him being at my door, seeing it broken, and questioning whether I belonged there. Once I produced ID (who doesn't carry some form of ID) that should be the end of it. If the officer entered my house without my permission then I would have a real problem with that. But again, I would recognize the situation and choose a response different than Gates: verbally attacking the man with the badge, the gun, and the backup on the way is a bad idea no matter how angry I am, how black I am, or how well my candidate did in the recent election.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jul 30, 2009 5:16:08 GMT -4
falgar25 "I have not broken into my own home, car, or accidentally set off my burglar alarm. But that isn't the point at all"..........I say it's a very important point due to the fact that thousands of unfounded calls are made to the Police across the country every year. A 911 call in itself is not probable cause that a crime has been committed.....The key point is weather the Sergeant was invited into the house. If not invited the Sergeant violated the law. Some might agree that it's a bad idea to buck the cop that enters your house illegally. Same goes for the men at the Alamo who drew the line in the sand, and bucked the might of the Mexican army. In the Gates case the line was drawn for him with the blood of the brave men who died defending our constitution. The cops can't enter your home illegally in the USA. Communist China is a different story.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jul 30, 2009 6:15:47 GMT -4
pete1,
You and I are in agreement that no one should enter your home without permission whether it be a nosy neighbor or an officer with a gun. No one without permission. But, that isn't what this case is about.
No where did I read that Gates refused entry to the officer. No where did I read that Gates demanded the officer leave. What I read was Gates took a combative attitude immediately upon being approached by the officer. Gates' arguments seem to be that he was only being approached because he was a black man and the officer was going to be sorry for this because of who Gates' friends were.
Pete1, if Gates was a white man and the charges were dismissed after he talked to his high-level friends in political circles, wouldn't you be one of the first to complain about him using the good-ole-boy network to get off?
Comparing this situation to the Alamo is an insult to history. Gates wasn't trying to protect his home, at least not according to any report that I have found. From his own actions and words, Gates was simply pissed off that he wasn't being treated as the connected guy he apparently is. This wasn't about bucking authority, this was about feeling entitled as part of a protected, privileged class. The men who died trying to defend the Alamo deserve better than being grouped with the likes of Gates.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Jul 30, 2009 6:21:52 GMT -4
falgar25 is my hero ;D
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jul 30, 2009 8:07:04 GMT -4
falgar25......Political thread Police punk out - reply #9 has the police report. The Sergeant clearly lies about a conversation with the 911 caller. He reports in this official document that he was in the house, but that's all he says.........It doesn't matter if Gates was white. The cops should not bend to political pressure to circumvent the law...........The line in the sand at the Alamo was not crossed by the defenders. Today the line in the sand is the constitution, and we should defend that line no matter what the odds.......The only way to prove what happened is for both men to take the box. I think both men are bending the truth to make their point. At this time the Sergeant is a proven liar according to the 911 caller, and the 911 tape......Police 101 says - Problem solved when Gates identifies himself - Police leave and the shouting match dissolves without the arrest........The president won't buy you a beer my friend, but I will.
|
|
|
Post by moose on Jul 30, 2009 17:14:44 GMT -4
pete get over the cop thing.. it makes you look like a "Punk"
|
|
|
Post by jetdoc on Jul 30, 2009 18:00:48 GMT -4
Quote: Pete1:" Problem solved when Gates identifies himself - Police leave and the shouting match dissolves without the arrest.."
I still have not heard a response to what "identifying" consists of. Surely it would need to be some type of government issued photo ID, not a employer furnished ID or an AARP card?
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jul 30, 2009 18:19:07 GMT -4
I didn't think there was a legal requirement to have a government issued form of identification while residing in your own home.
|
|
|
Post by goobastank on Jul 30, 2009 19:14:10 GMT -4
No requirement to have government ID. But if I was the officer responding I'd simply make sure that the man in the house was who he said he was, then take my leave. A state drivers license is easiest way. The address is listed right on the license. If not, name and date of birth can be used to verify current residence in most states.
As to entering the house... If I were to work where Pete lives and we got a call for a possible burglary, then using Pete's logic I can't enter his house (even if a door is open) without Pete (or the possible burglar) inviting me in. I should wait patiently at the door until Pete (or the possible burglar) decides to identify himself to me. Or, according to Pete, they don't have to identify themselves to me, and I should be on my way because they told me they belong there... anyone see anything wrong with that? I foresee alot of complaints if Pete gets elected.
Sorry Pete, you lost my vote. I had high hopes for you, too! You're becoming just another politician.
Have a great day!!
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Jul 30, 2009 21:10:04 GMT -4
1. No requirement to have government ID. But if I was the officer responding I'd simply make sure that the man in the house was who he said he was, then take my leave. 2. A state drivers license is easiest way. The address is listed right on the license. If not, name and date of birth can be used to verify current residence in most states. 3. As to entering the house... If I were to work where Pete lives and we got a call for a possible burglary, then using Pete's logic I can't enter his house (even if a door is open) without Pete (or the possible burglar) inviting me in. I should wait patiently at the door until Pete (or the possible burglar) decides to identify himself to me. Or, according to Pete, they don't have to identify themselves to me, and I should be on my way because they told me they belong there... anyone see anything wrong with that? 4. I foresee alot of complaints if Pete gets elected. 5. Sorry Pete, you lost my vote. I had high hopes for you, too! You're becoming just another politician. 6. Have a great day!! 1. No ID may be required, but isn't it a good idea, or maybe common sense to be able to prove you are who you say you are? Especially in this day and age of identity theft?
2. Ditto! Especially in this case. Didn't Gates provide a WORK ID 1st? without an address on it. (See ID theft comment above)
3. DITTO, how does the officer know if Pete has a gun to his head or back, or if bad guys are holding his family in the next room? I Watch TV and movies and so do the punks. (see common sense comment above)
4. Pete wont get elected, not this way.
5.Pete, you haven't won my vote yet, and Bugs Bunny is gaining ground on you. I don't think you're even up to the level of a politician, yet.
6. Ditto!
God will this thread go away, how dumb does it need to get?
The ALAMO? PETE! You should be ashamed!
The neighbor did a good job, I don't care WHAT she said on the phone, it took guts to call 911 for a suspected burglary and look at her payback. The cops did fine on the scene, and did their job, Gates initiated the crap and wouldn't let up so he went for a ride.
GET OVER IT ALREADY
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jul 31, 2009 2:52:04 GMT -4
bchevy & goodastank.......What If What If....The constitution protects us from unreasonable searches & seizures. There was no burglary being committed. The cops need to legally establish that there is a burglary first. Then they can enter the house without a warrant. Would you agree that it would be legal for Gates to flip the bird to the Sergeant, shut the door in his face, and then go to bed? If you think it's illegal what would the charge be?
|
|