I don't want to be seen as cop hating here. This has nothing to do with the officers following orders. Though they could've refused and I'm sure been reprimanded, the real problem is the authority that called for this type of blanket searching. Most likely not local law enforcement at all. Most likely federal and in some branch not really normally law enforcement at all. More like BATFE who is used to being on the other side and supplying the criminal. So, they didn't know the rules of actually trying to catch one. ZINGER
WOW! Very disappointing how few there are willing to stand for the principles this country was founded on. Sheeple!
JC, I'm with you. The video you posted makes me sick. Shared the same video on facebook earlier this morning.
On another note, do you remember helping a guy in a black SUV with a flat tire in the snow about 6 years ago in Edmond? I still owe you one for the help. Give me a yell if you need anything.
JC, I'm with you. The video you posted makes me sick. Shared the same video on facebook earlier this morning.
On another note, do you remember helping a guy in a black SUV with a flat tire in the snow about 6 years ago in Edmond? I still owe you one for the help. Give me a yell if you need anything.
Agreed. I'm not trying to bash Joe Patrol risking his ass every day. it's the federals and state Protectionist types who make some of these guys do this stuff.
There is a difference between a search for a known killer especially one that has been known to throw bombs and your typical 19 year old. If they came to my door without a reasonable cause I would refuse unless they had a warrant but them coming up and asking under these circumstances I would let them check, even if they were armed and on edge because the guy they were looking for has been involved in one cop killing already.
There are a lot of good reasons to worry about the way our government is going, but this is just fear and paranoia.
So sacrifice liberty for safety?
Your choice. But the bad thing is these people apparently weren't going to get a choice.
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/magazine-feature/seven-exceptions-search-warran
Knowing how to legally search a person, place or thing and properly seizing evidence are basic requisites to the investigative process. Officers also must have a clear understanding of when a search and/or arrest warrant is required and when it s not.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable government searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects. The Fourth Amendment also states no warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. (Minnesota v. Dickerson, 113 S. Ct. 2130 (1993)1.
However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts have carved out specific, limited exceptions to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement, which are commonly referred to as the seven exceptions to the search warrant rule.
The seven exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are exigent circumstances, search incidental to a lawful arrest, consent, plain view, caretaker function, inventory/impounded vehicles and motor vehicle.
Exigent Circumstances
Exigent means emergency, which means under life saving circumstances. Example: An elderly person in a wheel chair is trapped inside a burning apartment. Because lives are at stake, an officer can forcibly enter the apartment without a search warrant to rescue the person. The key: time and public need. The officer doesn t have time to get a warrant, and there s an immediate risk of harm to the public that requires immediate official action.
Another example: a situation in which public safety is paramount. If officers are being shot at, they may have to conduct a search of premises or a building without a search warrant because both the officers and the public are in imminent danger. Likewise, if an officer has probable cause to believe evidence is going to be destroyed, or if an officer is in hot pursuit of an escaped felon who runs into a house, a warrant isn t required. In Mincey v. Arizona (1978)2, the Supreme Court ruled officers don t have to delay a search if doing so endangers their lives or others.
Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
In a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision (United States v. Robinson, 17 414 U.S. 218)3, the Court stated, It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of the lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under the amendment.
The arrest must be valid under law. For the search without a warrant to be valid, the officer must be able to specifically articulate probable cause that the person committed a crime and there must have been an intention on the part of the officer to arrest prior to the search of the person. What is prohibited is the search of a person who is not yet under arrest in which contraband is found and then an arrest for possession of the contraband based on that search. The search of a person under arrest is subject to the areas under that person s immediate control (Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)4.
Example: The police observe a woman with a purse commit a crime. Officers may search her purse without a warrant. If officers find contraband and/or evidence of a crime in the purse, officers may charge the woman for both the original incident and for the evidence found in the purse.
Good report writing is key here. It s important for the officer to articulate the probable cause factors leading the officer to believe the woman committed a crime and the search of the purse was incidental to the arrest.
Consent
Officers and prosecutors face the heavy burden of proof, and searching a person or place with consent always presents problematic legal issues. Officers must prove the defendant voluntarily consented to a search, and there were no threats or promises of any kind.
Officers can search without a warrant if they have consent from a person who has the authority to give it. Probable cause is not required if the consent is knowingly and intelligently given.
In addition, there are several legal issues officers must overcome when conducting interviews, interrogating and taking statements and confessions, including:
1. Who can consent to a search;
2. What constitutes voluntarily consent; and
3. What limitations does the law impose on those conducting the search.
Age is also considered in legally defining consent. A child can t give consent, so you must know the age a person is considered to be a child in your state. Likewise, a parent may consent to the search of a child s room where no rent is paid, but a hotel manager or landlord may not provide legal consent to search unless the room or apartment is abandoned.
In addition, it s difficult to prove a person impaired by alcohol, drugs, a mental condition (psychological and/or genetic dysfunction), injury or a language barrier voluntarily gave consent. In a 1990 decision, (Illinois v. Rodriguez 497 U.S. 177)5 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a person can consent to a search if the facts available to the officer at the time of entry warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe the consenting party has authority over the premises.
Most officers carry a legal form with carefully written consent-to-search language people sign to indicate their voluntary consent to the search. However, in a 1973 Supreme Court decision (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218)6, the court ruled officers don t have to specifically advise an individual they don t have to consent. A person s consent, even if in writing, can be withdrawn at any time and the police must stop searching.
Plain View
If an officer is lawfully in a place and has probable cause to believe an item is contraband, stolen, property or other evidence of a crime, the officer can seize it without a search warrant. This is known as the plain-view doctrine.
In Horton v. California (496 U.S. 128)7, the Court reiterated when an officer has a right to be where they are, anything an officer observes in plain view is not the product of a search and is admissible as evidence. Example: An officer pulls over a car during a traffic stop and sees the handle of a gun protruding from under the passenger seat. If the motorist is not in legal possession of the weapon, the officer may seize it and charge the motorist with a criminal offense.
The courts have also repeatedly ruled that officers may use visual enhancement devices, such as flashlights and binoculars. In fact, it s common for cities to have cameras mounted in public places with officers in kiosks viewing television monitors.
Caretaker Function
People routinely turn over found property to the police. Officers on patrol also come across found or abandoned property and take it into their possession until its owner can be located.
Officers taking property into their care can search the items without a warrant. Example: If a footlocker is turned over to the police, officers have the right to open it without a search warrant to determine if its contents are dangerous to them or the public or if its contents can identify the owner.
Impounded Vehicles Inventory
Can a car towed by the police be searched without a warrant? In 1976 in South Dakota v. Opperman (428, U.S. 364)8, the court ruled that impounded vehicles may be searched and inventoried using the standard police procedures to secure the vehicles and its contents. This is similar to the caretaker-function exception to the Fourth Amendment.
If an officer found contraband or evidence of a crime during the inventory of the vehicle and had probable cause to believe it belonged to the registered owner or an arrested person, the officer has a basis for an arrest. The court has pointed out that the inventory search cannot be used as a pretext for discovering incriminating evidence, and it s best if a department has written policy requiring officers to inventory all towed and impounded vehicles.
If you want to search a vehicle that s part of a crime scene, obtain a search warrant. If a person was found shot to death in a vehicle, after the body was removed, you d certainly want to obtain a search warrant to thoroughly process the car for items of evidentiary value.
Motor Vehicle Exception
Fourth Amendment protection against searching motor vehicles without a search warrant has diminished over time. In 1925, the court ruled in Carroll v. United States (2657 U.S. 132)9 that if there was probable cause for an officer to secure a search warrant, it may be impractical because the vehicle was movable.
In a 1981 case (New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454)10, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer arrests a person in a vehicle, the officer may search the vehicle s passenger compartment, including any open or closed containers, but not the trunk.
In 1999, the court ruled in Maryland v. Dyson (527 U.S. 465)11 that a warrantless search of a vehicle may be justified if an officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, controlled substances or criminal evidence. The court reiterated that although the search is limited to areas where the officer has probable cause to believe an item may be located, the search extends to any container found that might contain the item.
Keep in mind that stopping a vehicle for a routine violation doesn't t mean there s probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, controlled substances or evidence of a crime.
Knowing how to legally search a person, place or thing and properly seizing evidence are basic requisites to the investigative process. Officers also must have a clear understanding of when a search and/or arrest warrant is required and when it s not.
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable government searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects. The Fourth Amendment also states no warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. (Minnesota v. Dickerson, 113 S. Ct. 2130 (1993)1.
However, both the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts have carved out specific, limited exceptions to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement, which are commonly referred to as the seven exceptions to the search warrant rule.
The seven exceptions to the Fourth Amendment are exigent circumstances, search incidental to a lawful arrest, consent, plain view, caretaker function, inventory/impounded vehicles and motor vehicle.
Exigent Circumstances
Exigent means emergency, which means under life saving circumstances. Example: An elderly person in a wheel chair is trapped inside a burning apartment. Because lives are at stake, an officer can forcibly enter the apartment without a search warrant to rescue the person. The key: time and public need. The officer doesn t have time to get a warrant, and there s an immediate risk of harm to the public that requires immediate official action.
Another example: a situation in which public safety is paramount. If officers are being shot at, they may have to conduct a search of premises or a building without a search warrant because both the officers and the public are in imminent danger. Likewise, if an officer has probable cause to believe evidence is going to be destroyed, or if an officer is in hot pursuit of an escaped felon who runs into a house, a warrant isn t required. In Mincey v. Arizona (1978)2, the Supreme Court ruled officers don t have to delay a search if doing so endangers their lives or others.
Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
In a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision (United States v. Robinson, 17 414 U.S. 218)3, the Court stated, It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of the lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under the amendment.
The arrest must be valid under law. For the search without a warrant to be valid, the officer must be able to specifically articulate probable cause that the person committed a crime and there must have been an intention on the part of the officer to arrest prior to the search of the person. What is prohibited is the search of a person who is not yet under arrest in which contraband is found and then an arrest for possession of the contraband based on that search. The search of a person under arrest is subject to the areas under that person s immediate control (Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)4.
Example: The police observe a woman with a purse commit a crime. Officers may search her purse without a warrant. If officers find contraband and/or evidence of a crime in the purse, officers may charge the woman for both the original incident and for the evidence found in the purse.
Good report writing is key here. It s important for the officer to articulate the probable cause factors leading the officer to believe the woman committed a crime and the search of the purse was incidental to the arrest.
Consent
Officers and prosecutors face the heavy burden of proof, and searching a person or place with consent always presents problematic legal issues. Officers must prove the defendant voluntarily consented to a search, and there were no threats or promises of any kind.
Officers can search without a warrant if they have consent from a person who has the authority to give it. Probable cause is not required if the consent is knowingly and intelligently given.
In addition, there are several legal issues officers must overcome when conducting interviews, interrogating and taking statements and confessions, including:
1. Who can consent to a search;
2. What constitutes voluntarily consent; and
3. What limitations does the law impose on those conducting the search.
Age is also considered in legally defining consent. A child can t give consent, so you must know the age a person is considered to be a child in your state. Likewise, a parent may consent to the search of a child s room where no rent is paid, but a hotel manager or landlord may not provide legal consent to search unless the room or apartment is abandoned.
In addition, it s difficult to prove a person impaired by alcohol, drugs, a mental condition (psychological and/or genetic dysfunction), injury or a language barrier voluntarily gave consent. In a 1990 decision, (Illinois v. Rodriguez 497 U.S. 177)5 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a person can consent to a search if the facts available to the officer at the time of entry warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe the consenting party has authority over the premises.
Most officers carry a legal form with carefully written consent-to-search language people sign to indicate their voluntary consent to the search. However, in a 1973 Supreme Court decision (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218)6, the court ruled officers don t have to specifically advise an individual they don t have to consent. A person s consent, even if in writing, can be withdrawn at any time and the police must stop searching.
Plain View
If an officer is lawfully in a place and has probable cause to believe an item is contraband, stolen, property or other evidence of a crime, the officer can seize it without a search warrant. This is known as the plain-view doctrine.
In Horton v. California (496 U.S. 128)7, the Court reiterated when an officer has a right to be where they are, anything an officer observes in plain view is not the product of a search and is admissible as evidence. Example: An officer pulls over a car during a traffic stop and sees the handle of a gun protruding from under the passenger seat. If the motorist is not in legal possession of the weapon, the officer may seize it and charge the motorist with a criminal offense.
The courts have also repeatedly ruled that officers may use visual enhancement devices, such as flashlights and binoculars. In fact, it s common for cities to have cameras mounted in public places with officers in kiosks viewing television monitors.
Caretaker Function
People routinely turn over found property to the police. Officers on patrol also come across found or abandoned property and take it into their possession until its owner can be located.
Officers taking property into their care can search the items without a warrant. Example: If a footlocker is turned over to the police, officers have the right to open it without a search warrant to determine if its contents are dangerous to them or the public or if its contents can identify the owner.
Impounded Vehicles Inventory
Can a car towed by the police be searched without a warrant? In 1976 in South Dakota v. Opperman (428, U.S. 364)8, the court ruled that impounded vehicles may be searched and inventoried using the standard police procedures to secure the vehicles and its contents. This is similar to the caretaker-function exception to the Fourth Amendment.
If an officer found contraband or evidence of a crime during the inventory of the vehicle and had probable cause to believe it belonged to the registered owner or an arrested person, the officer has a basis for an arrest. The court has pointed out that the inventory search cannot be used as a pretext for discovering incriminating evidence, and it s best if a department has written policy requiring officers to inventory all towed and impounded vehicles.
If you want to search a vehicle that s part of a crime scene, obtain a search warrant. If a person was found shot to death in a vehicle, after the body was removed, you d certainly want to obtain a search warrant to thoroughly process the car for items of evidentiary value.
Motor Vehicle Exception
Fourth Amendment protection against searching motor vehicles without a search warrant has diminished over time. In 1925, the court ruled in Carroll v. United States (2657 U.S. 132)9 that if there was probable cause for an officer to secure a search warrant, it may be impractical because the vehicle was movable.
In a 1981 case (New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454)10, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer arrests a person in a vehicle, the officer may search the vehicle s passenger compartment, including any open or closed containers, but not the trunk.
In 1999, the court ruled in Maryland v. Dyson (527 U.S. 465)11 that a warrantless search of a vehicle may be justified if an officer has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, controlled substances or criminal evidence. The court reiterated that although the search is limited to areas where the officer has probable cause to believe an item may be located, the search extends to any container found that might contain the item.
Keep in mind that stopping a vehicle for a routine violation doesn't t mean there s probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, controlled substances or evidence of a crime.
i find it amusing that you have no problem with the destruction of our rights. defending the police state our forefathers warned us about.
the kid was found by a non-cop civilian(cops are civilians, too), after the lockdown was lifted, anyway. it was nothing more than security pageantry and a display of military power over the general population.
man, if a killer on the loose is reason enough to imprison an entire community in their own homes and raid houses at random, why are there so many unsolved murders in the u.s?
I don't see your comments as cop hating.
There was a strategy that LEO's were asked to carry out. It's as simple as that. I'm sure there were LEO's who treated it properly, and a few (like in the video) who may have taken it up a notch to far.
I think the issue you are raising, isn't even with them. Those officers were in an unwinnable scenario. When the power structures above you tell you the 4th amendment is out the window, whether they ask nicely and people willingly surrender their rights, or they act aggressively and intimidate people to surrender their rights, at the end of the day the 4th amendment disappeared from the streets of Boston no matter how you cut it.
So lets say you live in the boonies. There is a known killer in your neck of them woods. You see a strange car run up the road, yet only have one neighbor there at the dead end. Caring for the neighbors safety, you call to make sure things are kosher, and find it going to voicemail three times/no answer, but you know they're home. You call the law, but they're busy and give a bullspit 20 minute response time estimate. You're a good neighbor so you load up to make sure your neighbor isn't being killed. The strange car is there. You knock on the door, no answer. You walk around the house and find yourself staring at a stranger... Is he good or bad? Do you say hello? Do you order to the ground?
This was not the police state in action, this was a real search for a known killer and not just a normal murderer but a terrorist. Like I said, this is just fear and paranoia. It is also playing into the far lefts hands. I would also bet the founding fathers would have sided with the police doing the searches for this guy.
There is a fine line but I do not believe this crossed it.
