4th Amendment Decision

[ny10570 745]

4th Amendment Decision

Police were in pursuit of an individual who had just purchased crack during a sting and followed the suspect into an apartment complex, but did not see which of two apartments he entered. As they approached, police noticed an odor of marijuana coming from one door. They had wrongly assumed the suspect was hiding in that apartment.

After pounding on the door and announcing their presence they heard noises suggesting evidence was being destroyed. After kicking in the door they saw weed and cocaine in open view. A search revealed crack, cash, but not the perp they were chasing. He had gone in the other apartment.

After the Supreme Court overturned the state and if I understand this correctly said that as long as the police did not intentionally create the exigent circumstance they can act.

This is where my inner liberal gets queazy. I'm fine with the spirit of the decision, but the ability of PD to create their own PC doesn't sit right. So I put this out there to the law enforcement members. How does this change things?

[25truck26 29]

Very Interesting.

[INIT915 1,119]

This is where my inner liberal gets queazy. I'm fine with the spirit of the decision, but the ability of PD to create their own PC doesn't sit right. So I put this out there to the law enforcement members. How does this change things?

Well, seeing as how three of the four Liberal Justices agreed in the opinion, I'm not sure what's upsetting your "inner liberal." (And I'm as Liberal as they come, so...)

Also, the decision specifically asserts the cops did not "create their own PC."

[ny10570 745]

In this case the justices argue that their knocking did not necessitate the perp to destroy evidence because he still could have refused them access. In that sense they did not create the PC, but I side with Justice Ginsburgh on this, had the officers not been banging on the door the perp never would have started destroying evidence.

As a pursuing officer, you know the perp entered one of two doors. He is not known to be armed, from the outside there is no evidence of forced entry, both are locked, and there is no sound coming from either apartment. Can you enter or do you need a warrant?

Update, reading the actual decision usually helps. While I still see Justice Ginsburgh's point I believe in this case it doesn't apply. The officers never threatened to kick in the door. They pounded on the door and identified themselves. The perp claimed the forcefulness of the knocking and tone of their voice implied they were preparing to force entry. This decision doesn't really reduce 4th Amendment protection.

Edited May 17, 2011 by ny10570

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

I guess I must be going crazy because when I read the decision I thought to myself how does change anything. A police officer sees a crime and pursues, during this pursuit they witness another crime and arrest that person too; that I what I read as what as being debated and I didn't think that was really any different than what occurs normally. What I saw as being interesting is the charges against the man fleeing were eventually dropped while these charges were pursued,

Was this decision essentially deciding whether or not the evidence collected from the other apartment was fruit from the poisonous tree?

[FFLieu 70]

4th Amendment Decision

Police were in pursuit of an individual who had just purchased crack during a sting and followed the suspect into an apartment complex, but did not see which of two apartments he entered. As they approached, police noticed an odor of marijuana coming from one door. They had wrongly assumed the suspect was hiding in that apartment.

After pounding on the door and announcing their presence they heard noises suggesting evidence was being destroyed. After kicking in the door they saw weed and cocaine in open view. A search revealed crack, cash, but not the perp they were chasing. He had gone in the other apartment.

After the Supreme Court overturned the state and if I understand this correctly said that as long as the police did not intentionally create the exigent circumstance they can act.

This is where my inner liberal gets queazy. I'm fine with the spirit of the decision, but the ability of PD to create their own PC doesn't sit right. So I put this out there to the law enforcement members. How does this change things?

In this case, the PD didn't really "create" their own PC. In fact, the Supreme Court decision in the instant case was a mere affirmation of several of their previous decisions, all of which boil down to the doctrine of "good faith." As long as the police are operating in good faith, then they can act. The good faith doctrine covers all searches and seizures that are categorized under the 4th Amendment, and acts more-or-less as a safeguard for police protection in instances when bona-fide actions that are undertaken in the spirit of the 4th Amendment produce different results, suspects, or both.

[abaduck 123]

This is interesting. I'm NOT liberal, and I foresee trouble ahead; I can see this, eventually, being reversed or made more restrictive in subsequent SC decisions, as less clear-cut cases come up.

I'm concerned that this may give officers too much power to force entry and search... it's easy to say 'well we *thought* we smelled drugs', or 'well we heard noises that we *interpreted* as evidence being destroyed'... you see where I'm coming from?

I don't like to say it but it's true; I'm certain there are a few officers out there who will misuse the 'cover' this decision gives them in an unreasonable manner... it's easy to say you thought you smelled or thought you heard, and hard to disprove. Was he destroying evidence or putting up shelves? Was she destroying evidence or did you just happen to knock when she was on the toilet? It could all get a bit tricky.

Mike

[ny10570 745]

I guess I must be going crazy because when I read the decision I thought to myself how does change anything. A police officer sees a crime and pursues, during this pursuit they witness another crime and arrest that person too; that I what I read as what as being debated and I didn't think that was really any different than what occurs normally. What I saw as being interesting is the charges against the man fleeing were eventually dropped while these charges were pursued,

Was this decision essentially deciding whether or not the evidence collected from the other apartment was fruit from the poisonous tree?

The question was whether or not the officers had the right to force entry into the apt. The CSM article doesn't make this clear. The officers didn't witness a crime in progress. They went to the wrong door, knocked, and then heard what they thought was their suspect destroying evidence. The defense argued that the officers were threatening to kick in the door through forceful pounding and an aggressive tone. They cannot threaten to force their way in. They can ask to come in, but if you do not invite them in they cannot enter (kind of like vampires). This all goes out the window for exigent circumstances; threats to life, risk of escape, or destruction of evidence.

This is interesting. I'm NOT liberal, and I foresee trouble ahead; I can see this, eventually, being reversed or made more restrictive in subsequent SC decisions, as less clear-cut cases come up.

I'm concerned that this may give officers too much power to force entry and search... it's easy to say 'well we *thought* we smelled drugs', or 'well we heard noises that we *interpreted* as evidence being destroyed'... you see where I'm coming from?

I don't like to say it but it's true; I'm certain there are a few officers out there who will misuse the 'cover' this decision gives them in an unreasonable manner... it's easy to say you thought you smelled or thought you heard, and hard to disprove. Was he destroying evidence or putting up shelves? Was she destroying evidence or did you just happen to knock when she was on the toilet? It could all get a bit tricky.

Mike

Like FFlieu said this really doesn't change anything. This just reaffirms established practice. Here's the link to the majority opinion. It makes everything much clearer.

[Just a guy 493]

For those of you that are concerned about the police having too much "power", this doesn't give us any more "power" than we already have.

When you are a cop that works in a busy area or in a special unit that deals with search warrants frequently, you know what the destruction of evidence sounds like as opposed to " putting up a shelf," and you know what people scurrying around in an apartment trying to hid or escape sounds like as ooposed to people getting off the couch to come open the door."

Let's try to keep this in perspective... we are talking about piece of s*** drug dealers here, the scum of the earth who ruin lives and communities, Who Cares what happens to them... when you live in a community that doesn't have the scourge of heavy drugs in it, it's easy to sit back and say " but we need to preserve their rights too."

If the apartment or the house next door to you had frequent visitors knocking on the door at all hours of the day and night or cars coming up comstantly and there were strange odors coming from the apartment, and you heard rumors that they were selling crack of heroin out of the apratment, the first thing you would do is call the police and ask them why they aren't doing anything about it and when you get the answer of " Our hands are tied and they have rights too," maybe you will rethink your position.

Or if your kids couldn't go to the park becuase the local dealer has taken up residence by the swingset to sell his drugs because the swing set has the best panoramic view to see if the cops are coming.

Or there were drive by's and gang fights on the corner or if your car or your house kept getting broken into becasue the crack heads are staying in your neighborhood becuase your local dealer has the best product.

I am a supporter of the constitution but I am also a supporter of Common Sense

[abaduck 123]

Crime Cop, you're correct in what you say, and most cases are as clear-cut as you describe; I don't want my post to be misinterpreted as disagreeing with that. But as I said in my post, I think it's in the hard cases where things are less clear-cut than the neighbourhood crack house that things will get legally sticky.

(I'm a Brit by birth, and the UK legal system has no concept whatever of 'fruit of the poisonous tree'; you can be convicted on the basis of ANY evidence there, no matter how many laws were broken in getting it - so it's an issue I take some interest in)

Mike

[Just a guy 493]

Crime Cop, you're correct in what you say, and most cases are as clear-cut as you describe; I don't want my post to be misinterpreted as disagreeing with that. But as I said in my post, I think it's in the hard cases where things are less clear-cut than the neighbourhood crack house that things will get legally sticky.

(I'm a Brit by birth, and the UK legal system has no concept whatever of 'fruit of the poisonous tree'; you can be convicted on the basis of ANY evidence there, no matter how many laws were broken in getting it - so it's an issue I take some interest in)

Mike

I understand where you are coming from. I take pride in my work and pride in our justice system no matter how silly it can be at times.

Although I become frustrated with all of the hoops we have to jump through to get search warrants etc... I never want to see the law circumvented just to make an arrest.

There are too many restrictions put on law enforcement and every time there is a new more restrictive ruling we have to adjust so this ruling is a breath of fresh air. People really have no clue what we have to go through to get our jobs done, we hit roadblocks and nonsense every step of the way and all we are trying to do is get the bad guy off the streets but in many cases we are the bad guy it seems.

[ex-commish 490]

Let's try to keep this in perspective... we are talking about piece of s*** drug dealers here, the scum of the earth who ruin lives and communities, Who Cares what happens to them... when you live in a community that doesn't have the scourge of heavy drugs in it, it's easy to sit back and say " but we need to preserve their rights too."

I am not a cop but a LEO of a differernt nature but what I find in my job is many of these decisions do tie hands of all LEO's. Crime Cop is correct...we are talking about drug dealers who have one agenda and that is to make money killing kids by poisoning them and the sooner those who have the power to make/change laws see this maybe we will get most of them off the street.

Remember the border patrol agents who did time for shooting a known drug dealer while crossing the border. They should have recieved medals instead they got prison time untill thier sentences were commuted by George Bush before he left office. Allthough a different case it is the same mentality.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Clearly I am in the minority here but I happen to be a huge fan of due process. I don't care how many hoops you have to jump through, if the guy is actually committing a crime and you are any good at doing your job as a LEO then you should have no problem finding evidence for a warrant or to make an arrest. If you are grasping at straws or having trouble nailing the bad guy well then maybe you should try and get better at your job or maybe, just maybe they weren't doing anything illegal in the first place....

(Note this is a general statement not aimed at any one person , merely at the complaints, Oh well its hard for me to lock up the bad guys because its so damn hard to prove they are doing anything wrong)

Edited May 18, 2011 by SRS131EMTFF

[Just a guy 493]

Clearly I am in the minority here but I happen to be a huge fan of due process. I don't care how many hoops you have to jump through, if the guy is actually committing a crime and you are any good at doing your job as a LEO then you should have no problem finding evidence for a warrant or to make an arrest. If you are grasping at straws or having trouble nailing the bad guy well then maybe you should try and get better at your job or maybe, just maybe they weren't doing anything illegal in the first place....

(Note this is a general statement not aimed at any one person , merely at the complaints, Oh well its hard for me to lock up the bad guys because its so damn hard to prove they are doing anything wrong)

I'm going to write off the infamatory nature of this post to the fact that you are young and in not in any way involved in law enforcement and therefore have no clue how Law Enforcement works or better yet how to make a case against someone.

I could deduce by the fact that you say you live in Westchester and that you are a volunteer that you live in a relatively low crime area due to the fact that there are no volunteer agencies in any of the higher crime areas of Westchester. With this in mind you are more than likely one of those people I spoke about in my previous post who proclaim that they are supporters of due process, until the problem is in your neighborhood or better yet, next to your house, then you want the police to go all out to solve the problem because it affects you.

I'm going to end my post with this, you posted "If you are grasping at straws or having trouble nailing the bad guy well then maybe you should try and get better at your job or maybe, just maybe they weren't doing anything illegal in the first place...."

Did you think before you posted this ?

[JJB531 652]

It's not even worth explaining crime cop. 18 years old, not involved in law enforcement in any way, and he's the expert. How about you go out there and show us how it's done kid?

[INIT915 1,119]

It's not even worth explaining crime cop. 18 years old, not involved in law enforcement in any way, and he's the expert. How about you go out there and show us how it's done kid?

Agreed.

What everyone misses here, despite all the collective "legal knowledge" that is frequently brought to bear on this forum (heavy sarcastic emphasis), this decision was an 8-1 decision. Does anyone realize how rare that is, especially over the last decade? This means this wasn't a liberal/conservative ideological split. Rather, the Court nearly unanimously agreed on the facts of this case and the nexus to the Fourth Amendment.

[25truck26 29]

Init915: Nice post Boss. Crime Cop your post were great and because of that I don't need to even post my opinion. You said it best.

[ny10570 745]

Let's try to keep this in perspective... we are talking about piece of s*** drug dealers here, the scum of the earth who ruin lives and communities, Who Cares what happens to them... when you live in a community that doesn't have the scourge of heavy drugs in it, it's easy to sit back and say " but we need to preserve their rights too."

I'm only concerned for their rights, because those are very much my rights. The law offers no distinction between us and them once we run afoul of the law. Sadly common sense has little if any place.

[helicopper 1,050]

Clearly I am in the minority here but I happen to be a huge fan of due process. I don't care how many hoops you have to jump through, if the guy is actually committing a crime and you are any good at doing your job as a LEO then you should have no problem finding evidence for a warrant or to make an arrest. If you are grasping at straws or having trouble nailing the bad guy well then maybe you should try and get better at your job or maybe, just maybe they weren't doing anything illegal in the first place....

(Note this is a general statement not aimed at any one person , merely at the complaints, Oh well its hard for me to lock up the bad guys because its so damn hard to prove they are doing anything wrong)

If you're implying that the members here are not advocates of due process I think you need to reconsider your position as the majority of us are staunch advocates of due process and protecting our rights. To suggest that law enforcement officers are not advocates of due process is flat out wrong. We work within the sytem that has been crafted for us and this decision is merely a clarification of what has long been an exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment.

You obviously didn't even read this case before posting your comments. The police were pursuing someone who was "actually committing a crime" not "grasping at straws" or "having trouble nailing the bad guy". Perhaps the appropriate criticism is that they just didn't run fast enough and he managed to get into an apartment before they apprehended him.

Every warrantless search is scrutinized at every level from the PD to the DA to the courts and in this case it went all the way to the Supreme Court where, in what was already noted as a rare 8-1 decision, they reaffirmed that the destruction of evidence is an exception to the warrant requirement. It is a great example of due process working as designed and everyone should be happy about it. Our rights are being protected and law enforcement is doing their job.

Having absolutely no idea what it takes to get a warrant or run into a housing project after a suspect your final comment "Oh well its hard for me to lock up the bad guys because its so damn hard to prove they are doing anything wrong" is nothing more than inflammatory and a slap in the face at all law enforcement. Every day police officers jump through all the hoops you're accusing them of ignoring or finding too difficult.

Now, let's get back to the point: the Supreme Court decision.

[FFLieu 70]

Clearly I am in the minority here but I happen to be a huge fan of due process. I don't care how many hoops you have to jump through, if the guy is actually committing a crime and you are any good at doing your job as a LEO then you should have no problem finding evidence for a warrant or to make an arrest. If you are grasping at straws or having trouble nailing the bad guy well then maybe you should try and get better at your job or maybe, just maybe they weren't doing anything illegal in the first place....

(Note this is a general statement not aimed at any one person , merely at the complaints, Oh well its hard for me to lock up the bad guys because its so damn hard to prove they are doing anything wrong)

Did you know that there's also such a thing as a warrantless arrest, too? Did you know that there's also exceptions to the warrant guidelines? Did you know that the 4th Amendment really isn't such a black-and-white issue, as its text has never been updated since it was written, but its interpretations have widely varied in the time since? Did you know that the spirit of the 4th Amendment is grounded in abuses that took place at the hands of the British Monarchy, thus giving more power to the people, and that no matter how many different interpretations there are of the Amendment, that is a standard that will remain constant?

In the case at hand, the cops weren't "grasping at straws." They were in hot pursuit subsequent to witnessing a narcotics buy, and when faced with the choice of which apartment to go into, they used the totality of the circumstances at hand in order to make their decision. The ruling, contrary to what papers like AM New York stated in this morning's edition, changes nothing, as it is an affirmation of already established holdings subsequent to previous caselaw. We are not on the slippery slope to having a police state.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

I don't see the issue...they didn't create their own probable cause...simply put the dude was smoking grass and they smelled it...in your home or not its still illegal. If there is evidence of a crime simply put they have the right to act in a legal accordingly fashion...makes total sense to me...but hey I'm a law abiding citizen (for the most part )