Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hunter]

OK, I'm very pissed off, hotter than a 110 engine.  Here is what happened just a short while ago:

I got home from work and proceeded to call my wife's cell which is 917 area code. As I was dialing 1- 9 - 1 the second 1 dialed twice and I hung up immediately.  About a minute later, I get a call, a girl saying: this is so and so from Hills. township police department, did you call 911?  I said NO and explained that I dialed 19117 instead of 1917.  She asked for my name and address, I gave her.  She asked for my date of birth, I said: why do you need that? I just explained to you what happened and it shouldn't have got to 911 because I dialed 1 first.  She said: "Fine, I'll send a petrol to your place" and we finished the conversation and I hung up the phone.  As I was sitting in the office, next to the front door, I saw a police car pulled up to the curb.  I continued working while waiting for them to ring the door bell.  My kids were outside by the garage with baby sitter.  Next thing I here is the baby sitter came to the office and says a police man wants to talk to me.  I followed her towards the garage when I saw HIM standing by the family room (in the house).

  He asked me some questions and I answered and we walked through the garage to the driveway, same way he came in.  After they left, I asked the sitter if she invited them inside and she said NO, he just followed her in. 

Is this normal?  Are they allowed to enter the house without invitation or warrant?  This really pisses me off and I concider it invasion of privacy.  He was a young kid maybe 22-23 years old and an older guy was sitting in the car.

I'm so mad that I was thinking, I'm gonna do the same thing Saturday morning, then get naked and sit at the table wait see if comes in again. 

[erniezap]

I'm not a cop but it's my understanding that they have to check out the call since it could have been someone you were holding captive, a medical emergency, etc, where the person couldn't talk.

[hunter]

I'm not a cop but it's my understanding that they have to check out the call since it could have been someone you were holding captive, a medical emergency, etc, where the person couldn't talk.

OK.  I can understand checking.  But does it give them permission to enter before asking any questions?

[pokerpig]

They get a call, they have to check it out. What if someone was holding you (or your family) hostage?
The came in to make sure you were ok. Thats their job.
You should thank them. Not appropriate to be mad.

[Ironhorse]

There have been cases where someone called 911 seeking help, and then were coerced against their will to say it was a mistake. So yes, for your sake soemtimes they do come out and yes, under these conditions they can walk in to a home and check without a warrant or consent. Put yourself in the officers shoes. He and the department would be liable if the call was legit, and he did not check it out fully. As far as they know, you called 911, and that is what the incoming phone log says.

[hunter]

It was not an unusual situation or condition.  All the doors were open, kids were playing in the driveway, going in and out of the house.  They are supposedly trained for this.  We can rationalize it to death.  Still there has to be adequate reason to be considered probable cause.   I'm the first one to teach my kids that cops are their friends and they should never be afraid of them.   

[Fired00d]

Not sure what the protocol would be, but why don't you try calling the nonemergency number for your PD and ask to speak to the station commander or officer in charge to see what the procedure is in situations like this.

I do know that LEO will respond to check on 911 hangups, but to enter w/o "probably cause".... well I'm not sure about that. As you stated the kids were outside playing w/the babysitter and it seemed they could/should have waited for an adult to speak w/before entering. Then again he may have been concerned for the babysitters safety when she went back inside. Still would seem to me w/the kids outside playing and no other signs of anything wrong he could have waited to see if an adult would come to the door/garage.

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[hunter]

Now that you mentioned d00d, I just remembered I have a friend from old church who's a retired Leu. from police force.  I'll give him a call and ask the question.  Obviously the term "probable cause" is a double edge sword and open to interpretation.  He asked to see an adult and could have waited to see one and ask he can come in and check the house.  If there was something going on, it would have been his biggest mistake to enter the house alone, with out back up.  Wouldn't it?

[pokerpig]

Probable cause (fourth amendment) doesn't apply here because the officer was not there to make a search, seizure, or arrest. He was there on a public safety matter.

I wont question if he did it the smartest or best way, or maybe even impolite. But don't forget that he was there for your benefit.

So I still don't understand why you responded with anger?

[hossdog]

The money these guys get for putting there lives on the line every day isn't enough. It's not like he had his gun pointed at your head.

[MJZ]

Look at it a different way, he just got a call from dispatch that there was a 911 hang up. He has no idea if you were laying on your floor with a heart attack or possibly you are a crack head that had just beaten the hell out of your wife or child. Remember the call from dispatch probably only stated a 911 hang up. The situation called for him to put his life on the line only to save yours and it sure isn't for the $$$$$ when in most cases he is paid less than an kindergargen teacher. I think if you step back and look at the situation that way, you would probably be a bit more grateful. IMHO

[DCFIREMANN]

HUNTER remember all of us in PUBLIC SAFETY are here for you well being. Not being in Law Enforcement but on the Fire side. If I run a call like this ( I am an officer) I will knock on the door first, if we get no answer I will try and maybe even force entry. It depends on the situation. It is really for YOUR BENEFIT!!!!!!

It is not like the Officer entered the house and walked through it looking around.

Be Safe

THE DAWG

[murphy]

Rules change when 911 is called... no warrants are required.

Case law says that people don't generally call 911 unless there is an emergency... so if there is a call we always MUST investigate.

There have been too many domestic related 911 calls where the victim calls a dispatcher then the phone is hung up with no communication. Dispatcher calls back and the guilty party answers "no... everything is fine here".

Trouble starts when the phone is hung up after that call, victim gets beaten worse or even is killed.

Because or wrongfull death suits the law was changed Continent Wide and police will enter your home after a 911 call is made just to make sure everything is OK.

Only weird part I found about your original post is that the dispatcher asked you for your birthday... not normal here, but when the copper arrived at your door they should have asked.... ran your name to check if you were a bad guy or not.

[hunter]

Let me say it again, I did talk to the dispatch first and explained to her that was a mistake.  If she didn't believe me, and called the petrol to check it out, then He shouldn't have walked into the house ,  if there was a situation, he would have been another hostage or dead with his partner the older one with more experience in the car.  The doors were open, windows open and kids running in and out of the house playing.  If the was a foul play, he would put everyone in danger including himself.  I'm a very private person and value my privacy, I don't have any reason to be afraid of them.  I live in a neighborhood that we never luck our doors (house or cars).  I want to be sure that if there is a situation, I can count on them to handle it properly.  A careless movement like that can be very very costly.

I say it again, I don't believe they were acting as if there was something wrong,  He acted out of in-experience and respect for people that when you ask to talk to the owner or and adult, then wait.  They could see me in the office working on the computer when they pulled to the curb and I was expecting to see them at the front door.  I was only 10 feet from the door in front a 8-foot wide window. 

I do have a lot of respect for law enforcement, fire, EMT and military personnel (those who deserve respect), I also believe that there are those who abuse their positions. 
I also believe that 1% doesn't just apply to bikers, it's also true at any level and offices from government to law enforcement and military.

Honestly, I blame his partner more than him.  The senior officer should have been by his side and show him how to do and what to do.

And murphy, they asked for my name again and my date of birth and left.

[Fired00d]

Check out the attached document starting on page 6 "Analysis".....

In order for police officers to lawfully enter a residence they must have either a warrant or “probable cause plus exigent circumstances.” Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635, 636 (2002). Exigent circumstances include the “hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, or imminent destruction of evidence, or the need to prevent a suspect’s escape, or the risk of danger to the police or to other persons inside or outside of the dwelling.” Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 100 (1990) (citations omitted). The government argues that the warrantless entry in this case was justified by the risk of danger the situation posed to both the police and the public. In determining whether a risk of danger to police officers and others amounts to exigent circumstances, the Tenth Circuit employs a two-part test: “whether (1) the officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe there is an immediate need to protect the lives or safety of themselves or others, and (2) the manner of the search and scope is reasonable.” United States v. Najar, 451 F.3d 710, 719 (10th Cir. 2006). The operative term in this test is immediate. For example, in Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, the United States Supreme Court upheld a warrantless entry into a home where police could hear and see an ongoing altercation occurring inside. Id. at 406. The Supreme Court explained that “n these circumstances, the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for believing . . . that the violence in the kitchen was just beginning.” Id. Similarly, in United States v. Najar, 451 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2006), a police dispatcher received a 911 hang up call. Id. at 715-16. The dispatcher made four call back attempts that all resulted in answers and hang ups. Id. at 716. Upon arriving at the home, police could hear and see someone inside, but received no response when they loudly knocked and announced their presence. Id. Eventually the officers were met at the front door by an uncooperative occupant who refused to allow admission. Id. at 716-17. Fearing for the safety of other occupants, the officers entered the home without a warrant and discovered a shotgun and a woman face down on the bedroom floor. Id. at 717. In upholding this warrantless entry, the Tenth Circuit noted that “the Fourth Amendment does not bar police officers from making warrantless entries and searches when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid.” Id. at 714 (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978)). Again, the operative term being immediate.

By the description given in the original post (IMO) there wasn't any immediate danger.

I don't want my post to get misconstrued that I don't respect LEO and the job they do, however I do know there is a fine line when it comes to "right of entry".

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d