Colorado county approves warrantless search and seizure of residences and confiscation of firearms

[dennishoddy]

Colorado is very beautiful...you just can't enjoy it due to the liberals, congestion, traffic, liberals, taxes, cost of living, liberals and now their idiotic gun laws that only punish the law-abiding. Oh, yeah...and the liberals.

This was the view from my home in Colorado in the summer of 2015. Gorgeous place in the mountains on 15 very isolated and private acres...where, for the last 7 years we lived there, we were basically prisoners in our own home on the weekends due to the traffic and crowds. I moved to northern Idaho. Way mo betta...


View attachment 226612

Beautiful place with a great view. I'd hate leaving that, although Idaho is equally as beautiful.
Where we spend summers in Colorado around Antonito up to Del Norte there is zero traffic issues beyond normal, and none of the liberal
BS for the most part. Yes, there are some in small businesses that were afraid of the gubberment or liberal believers, but other businesses had signs posted on their doors that you did not need mask and your freedom to mingle as you wanted was ok with them in violation of the burdensome Co laws during the covid in 2020.
Our group of 12 couples in our RV's never followed any rules laid out by the liberals. If a business objected, we just left. Sorry about your bottom line, your neighbor will get the money. No masks, not social distancing. Amazingly enough, no one caught the rona.
Months later in Tx where we winter, wife and I caught it losing smell and taste. No other symptoms.
Tested positive for antibodies, but still took the jab because we didn't have all the information currently available. Having known what we know now, we would have refused the jab.
Technology has some promising things coming up.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

The only way an LEO can enter a domicile without a warrant is if they see a crime in progress under most states laws anyway and the Constitution.
If the curtains are shut and the door locked, they cannot enter without a warrant.
Red flag laws are Constitutionally unlawful.

OK... In the interest of keeping this an informative discussion let's make this simple. I didn't read all of whatever that was you posted.

Keep in mind I said, in both my posts, that LEO can enter a property without a warrant under several circumstances. I didn't say "search"...but they can do that, too.

Your statement: "The only way an LEO can enter a domicile without a warrant is if they see a crime in progress under most states laws anyway and the Constitution." is just flat out, 100% wrong. The easiest way to prove that to you is pointing out that a property owner can always give consent to the LEO to search the property. A "consent search" is one way an officer can search a home without a warrant.

Also, are you telling me that an officer(s) who responds to a disturbance call at a home with drawn curtains and locked doors can't enter if, for example, they hear a woman screaming and then gunshots coming from inside? Seriously? Of course they can even if they can't see an actual crime in progress. It's called "exigent circumstances" and cops enter places all the time based on exigent circumstances. They can conduct a limited search in order to preserve life. Meaning, they can search pretty much the entire house without a warrant looking for a victim and/or the suspect. They can do the same thing if they have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is being destroyed...though in my experience that's much harder to articulate.

If, while inside that home, they see contraband in plain view...drugs, for example...they can seize that based on the "plain view" doctrine. Most of the time, they won't, though. Because it's easier and will be better in court if they secure the home (which is technically a seizure) while waiting for a warrant.

If an officer witnesses a person commit a serious crime...shoot someone...and the person runs the officer, obviously, can give chase. If the officer witnesses the suspect run into a residence the officer can enter the residence and search for the suspect, even if the suspect shuts and locks the door behind him, without a warrant. It's called "hot pursuit".

Officers can also conduct limited searches or "sweeps" for their safety once inside a home.

These are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my idea. It's not a comprehensive list of how an officer can enter a residence, or even conduct certain searches/seizures, without a warrant.

But don't take my word for it...feel free to look these things up. Here's a great place to start and it comes from right here in Oklahoma:

https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1645&context=tlr

 

[Zamanche]

Hopefully, it will get held up in the court..

 

[GnometownHero]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...private-property-stopping-sale-firearms-ammo/

The current sheriff of Saguache county is Dan Warwick, he is a personal friend of mine, he is a NRA life member, loves to shoot, I have done gun parts and ammo trades with him over the years. His senior deputies and under sheriff are really great guys I am also good friends with a couple of them. What the Crestone hippies and flaky Saguache county board members want really doesn't sway him from his constitutional standards. Dan is one of the good guys, but if you break the law, he will bust you.
He and his deputies have been in at least 3 heavy duty firefights that I know of, they shoot to kill.

 

[Glocktogo]

I think what's being argued here is exigent circumstance? For a LEO to enter a closed/secured private building for the purposes of conducting a criminal investigation, without the express consent of the lawful occupant(s), they must have either a warrant, or articulable exigent circumstance.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/cr...rth-amendment-reasonableness-requirement.html

5. Exigent Circumstances
Warrantless searches, seizures, and arrests may be justified by "exigent" circumstances. To determine whether exigent circumstances justified police conduct, a court must review the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the underlying offense and whether the suspect was fleeing or trying to escape.

However, the surrounding circumstances must be tantamount to an emergency. Shots fired, screams heard, or fire emanating from inside a building have all been considered sufficiently exigent to dispense with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

So if a LEO sees a dangerous felony suspect run into a home, they may enter without a warrant to prevent harm to others, and to apprehend said suspect. If in the course of these narrow activities they see evidence of other crimes, they must seek a warrant to investigate them further.

If they believe someone is in danger of death or great bodily harm, the exigency exemption still applies.

The reason Red Flag laws are unconstitutional, is because they have neither exigency or proof of criminal activity to support entry and removal of private property. The good faith exemptions shouldn't apply, because everyone from the judge to the DA's office and officers know there is no supporting crime. It's the very definition of bad faith.

7. Reasonable Searches and Good Faith

Searches, seizures, and arrests made pursuant to a defective warrant may be justified if the officer was proceeding in "good faith." The Supreme Court has said that a search made pursuant to a warrant that is later declared invalid (i.e., it fails to meet the requirements for a valid warrant enumerated above) will still be considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment so long as the warrant was issued by a magistrate and the defect was not the result of willful police deception (see United States v. Leon). This exception to the warrant requirement was created so as not to punish honest police officers who have done nothing wrong while acting in accordance with an ostensibly valid warrant.

So far the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on the illegality of RF laws that I'm aware of. I'm not exactly confident they will rule correctly on it if they do review it, because "conservative leaning" or not, SCOTUS has a long and ongoing tendency to side with the State on these matters.