I saw nothing about an illegal entry either but why let facts get in the way?
I saw nothing about an illegal entry either but why let facts get in the way?
Maybe I am misinformed here, it has happened before, but can an officer enter your house on what he or she may think is inside without a warrant? I didn't think they could, again I may be wrong.
Depends on if the other guy that answered the door let them in or not. If they kicked down the door or even barged in past the guy there might be a question. It all depends on if the pot spotted is ruled as Probable Cause or not. None of how they actually entered the house is mentioned in the story so there is no way of knowing.
you do make valid points. the way the article was written with the homeowner screaming to get out I assumed they were not given access. I shouldn't assume. I never even thought about someone else allowing access.
My question is why where they in the back yard? And we need more info on the exchange at the front door.
Can they enter, absolutely. With nothing more than the visual observations of illegal activity as stated by one officer in the report Scotus says police can enter for what is known as a protective sweep of the house for several reasons. 1. to prevent any evidence from being destroyed (one officer stated that he observed a male gathering up what he believed to be marijuana. Any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that you would do that only to conceal or destroy it prior to being detected by law enforcement), 2. Guns and drugs go hand in hand and a sweep can also be used to find other people laying in wait (like in this story) that would pose a potential risk for officers(and in fact there was someone laying in wait with a gun that just goes to show this fact). This entry is not looked at as a search by the courts. If they wanted to go looking for the dope then they could enter, detain the occupants then apply for a search warrant and if granted they could then search for what was outlined in their search warrant affidavit. From reading the story there was nothing illegal about the entry and seemed textbook from a court standard and law enforcement standard.
Now if someone let them in even if it was not the resident, then that is good to go also. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is illegal.
Hmmm not good.
I agree with SPD.
I think that the reason this charge will be upheld is because, the officers responded to a call at the residence, knocked to gain access, occupant called 911 to confirm it was the police, after receiving information they were, he allowed access. The defendant was waiting behind the door with the gun pointed at the officer and made a threatening "command".
This could have ended badly, but luckily for everyone the defendant didn't shoot the officer and the officers didn't shoot the defendant.
I think that the reason this charge will be upheld is because, the officers responded to a call at the residence, knocked to gain access, occupant called 911 to confirm it was the police, after receiving information they were, he allowed access. The defendant was waiting behind the door with the gun pointed at the officer and made a threatening "command".
This could have ended badly, but luckily for everyone the defendant didn't shoot the officer and the officers didn't shoot the defendant.
Well, that is true. Atleast nobody got trigger happy on either side.
Seems kind of like a dangerous precedent, that officers can forcefully enter a residence on the word of another officer that he has "visual observations" of something. Seems like that could be a good excuse to enter any house.
