Little Rock Police investigate shooting death

[MyMonkey]

The story said that the door was open and they say the apartment in disarray. In Oklahoma there is what is called the "Plain sight clause" which applies to LEO's. It means that if a LEO can see something that is suspicious that is in plain sight, they have a right to enter and investigate. Which from the limited info that we have access to right now, that seems to be what happened. It is the same thing if you are growing pot in your house and you have your curtains open and a LEO walks by and sees it, they wont have to get a warrant to come in and take action, because it was in plain sight.

Just ask any LEO on here if what I say is correct. GC come on here and tell if my post is accurate.

Sorry dude but what happened here is not the same thing as plain sight of an illegal activity. Plenty of case law on those distinctions. Not saying they had no right to enter but works differently.

 

[Danny]

The employing agency cannot give authority it does not possess. Every lease I've ever signed provides the landlord a right to entry with 24 hours' notice, or for emergency maintenance. Which do you contend exists here?

There's no right to shoot in self-defense when you threaten the other party; consider that in the context of my third question.


Apartment, house, same-same to the resident. The hallways may be common areas, but the individual dwellings are just that: individual homes. Analogize to a gated community, with the (private) streets as hallways, and the gates as the front door.

Bottom line: in Oklahoma at least, the (off-duty, acting-as-private-citizen) officers had no right to enter a private home. They did so anyway. At the time, they were not officers, they were private citizens (from the story: "two off-duty officers . . . on private security detail [emphasis added]"). That's trespass. The resident, absent other information not presented, acted according to his rights under 21 OK 1289.25 (again, for sake of argument, treating as Oklahoma, not Arkansas).

If a couple of private citizens entered my home, you can be damned sure I'd fight their efforts to restrain me and work my way to something of thirty caliber or greater. My housekeeping does not mean you're entitled to enter, nor does the open door. If you think differently, come by in the spring and the dog and I will be happy to "discuss" the matter with you.

Well, it's obvious that three things exist here. #1, the whole story hasn't been reported yet. #2, too many people are making up their own "facts" to the story. And #3, nothing anyone says will ever convince you of anything.

 

[Glocktogo]

Well, it's obvious that three things exist here. #1, the whole story hasn't been reported yet. #2, too many people are making up their own "facts" to the story. And #3, nothing anyone says will ever convince you of anything.

THIS, is OSA gold. I can barely stand to open these threads to even see the original story. What ensues is a bunch of mental midgets exercising gymnastic leaps into fantasy land, while ignoring the most basic precepts of debate and resoundingly ignoring any hint of logic.

 

[yukonjack]

In Oklahoma there is what is called the "Plain sight clause" which applies to LEO's. It means that if a LEO can see something that is suspicious that is in plain sight, they have a right to enter and investigate.

Kid you better quit while your ahead. Your little post here had me rolling on the floor laughing my arse off!!! Thank goodness your notta cop. But please post on, it's good for a few laughs.

 

[redneck1861]

Kid you better quit while your ahead. Your little post here had me rolling on the floor laughing my arse off!!! Thank goodness your notta cop. But please post on, it's good for a few laughs.

Really you don't think that is a law? Maybe you should ask a LEO or use google, but here it is

''Plain View.'' --Somewhat similar in rationale is the rule that objects falling in the ''plain view'' of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant 104 or that if the officer needs a warrant or probable cause to search and seize his lawful observation will provide grounds therefor. 105 The plain view doctrine is limited, however, by the probable cause requirement: officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them. 106


The Court has analogized from the plain view doctrine to hold that once officers have lawfully observed contraband, ''the owner's privacy interest in that item is lost,'' and officers may reseal a container, trace its path through a controlled delivery, and seize and reopen the container without a warrant. 107

here is the link http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/04.html IT is the 6th and 7th paragraphs.

 

[redneck1861]

Sorry dude but what happened here is not the same thing as plain sight of an illegal activity. Plenty of case law on those distinctions. Not saying they had no right to enter but works differently.

I was just using that as a reference, but its possible that they had probable cause that someting illegal had happened, which would give them the right to enter.

 

[JRSherman]

Looks to me like that all applies to search and seizure of illegal items than it does to entering someone's house off duty, but I'm not real great when it comes to understanding lawyer terminology either. . .

 

[yukonjack]

Really you don't think that is a law? Maybe you should ask a LEO or use google, but here it is

''Plain View.'' --Somewhat similar in rationale is the rule that objects falling in the ''plain view'' of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure without a warrant 104 or that if the officer needs a warrant or probable cause to search and seize his lawful observation will provide grounds therefor. 105 The plain view doctrine is limited, however, by the probable cause requirement: officers must have probable cause to believe that items in plain view are contraband before they may search or seize them. 106


The Court has analogized from the plain view doctrine to hold that once officers have lawfully observed contraband, ''the owner's privacy interest in that item is lost,'' and officers may reseal a container, trace its path through a controlled delivery, and seize and reopen the container without a warrant. 107

here is the link http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/04.html IT is the 6th and 7th paragraphs.

Please define what "contraband" these officers observed based on the limited facts that have been presented so far? You don't have a clue what any of this even means.

 

[sigsilly]

I think some perspective is lost by some people here. A human life was taken.
A 67 year old man took the night stick away from an off duty officer and they killed him when he wouldn't put it down?
And they were in his home to boot?
If a police officer comes into my home while not on duty and pulls a night stick out, he isn't going to be offered coffee and donuts.
Something is seriously wrong with this whole situation.

 

[redneck1861]

Please define what "contraband" these officers observed based on the limited facts that have been presented so far? You don't have a clue what any of this even means.

I posted that as a general idea of being able to enter a residence, They had probable cause that illegal activity took place, which gives them the ability to enter without permission. And have you ever entered into the Police Academy? Well I have, so I think that I know a little more than what you think.

So you need to get YOUR facts straight before you start coming at me like that.