So let's say the Police get a warrant for a particular address. Oh, let's make one up like 303 Vine Street. They go to the location, break down the door only to find out they have the wrong location. However, the address IS 303 Vine Street. They quickly learn the home has been split up into two apartments and immediately go into the second apartment and find their suspect and make an arrest.
OK, now all of a sudden when the Police broke down the first door to the wrong apartment they found a small amount of drugs in that apartment. Can they also make an arrest for the person in the first apartment?
Just know this is something that did happen recently.
You Make The Call.New Posts to fall below.
35 comments:
No they can not. There are propper proceedures that must be followed. While it is illegal to possess narcotics, officers must have reasonable suspicion to force entry into a residence. Breaking down the wrong door does not justify resonable suspicion.
Yes, it was in plain sight. No, it is fruit from the poisoned tree.
Was the home documented in official records as being split in to two entities - and were the two entities clearly marked on the entrances? If so (both parts of my initial premise), IMO, the warrant is invalid as it is not specific enough and an arrest should not be made. If not (either part of my initial premise), the address is a single entity for which the warrant was issued - book 'em.
No, illegal search and seizure, however this is the new tactic by police...
They, most of the time, deliberately go into the wrong address and then lock them up for something in their home... That is illegal... Cops can ONLY SEARCH ITEMS THAT BELONG TO THE PERSON ON THE WARRANT, AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE A WARRANT...
For instance, A drug dealer is being watched by the cops, the cops get a warrant to search his home, he lives with his girlfriend at a different address... They go to the girlfriends address and break down the door and find drugs, guns, whatever... They use the findings against the drug dealer...
Drug dealer walks because cops can only search the belongings to the person on the warrant, and since the home is in the girlfriends name, they can not search or seize anything and if they do, they can not hold it against the dealer...
Yes Joe they absolutely can. The entire decision at this point comes down to one question. Where the police officers acting in good faith. The facts of this case as I see them are as follows.
The officers obtained a warrant for 303 Vine St. signed by a judge based upon probable cause.
The officers respond to the residence and use an entry team who were, once again, briefed in good faith.
The entry team made entry pursuant to the warrant and the search officers subsequently located and seized illegal drugs and arrested the alleged violators.
The question will be presented during a motions hearing whether or not it was immediately apparent to the officers upon entry that they were in a residence which was different than that which was described in the warrant.
According to the information presented here, it appears that the officers believed they were in the right place and were acting in good faith.
Joe I am amazed at the people who submit these comments in n authoritative manner yet are so far off. They submit what they THINK should be the case and it simply isn't. Roadside attorneys. I guess that's why people are required to go to law school in order to practice law.
I would say the answer is NO. Whatever is documented in official records as to the building's layout should not be a factor. LE should be just aware as everyone else seems to be of the illegal converted apartment situation and take it into consideration at all times. Surveillance should have caught this.
Not my place to call. It is a decision best left to the police and courts, without interference with "wannabes" who know zilch about what happened.
p:28.. where do you come up with this stuff.... that us absurd... If the address is not listed a muliple dwelling and there is no exterior markings indicating 2 dwellings, then yes they can make an arrest. they entered on good faith, to the best of thier knowledge.. 100% admissible. now if the outside of the door was marked Unit 1, or APT.A then no arrest, bad entry.
This is the kind of crap you got when the Fumbling Bureau of Imcompetance gets involved in local LE and the local LE is chopping at the bit to attend FBI sponsored seminars.
The FBI couldn't even catch on when they were warned repeatedly that a dozen or so middle eastern men were taking flight instuctions and only seemed interested in landing the airplanes.
They may have been acting in good faith but where does their IQ's come into place? Yes, eveyone but them seems to know illegally converted apartments is a problem in Salisbury!
Just what everyone needs! Police who aren't even aware of what is going on in their own towns.
i would say that they will arrest you but maybe it would get thrown out in court because of not having a search warrant. this did happen to a couple of college guys years ago. they were sitting in their living room when a suspect burst through their front door, ran through the house and out the back door, the police were in pursuit. there was mariujana on the coffee table. the police came back later and arrested both of the boys and they were prosecuted but i honestly don't know the outcome of either of their cases.
IMHO a jury trial would clear the residents of the wrongful invasion and charges.
Even a blind squirrel can find an acorn.
Does the "good faith" argument still hold if the police kick the wrong door down, shoot the dog, beat the husband and wife, terorize the children, ransack the house (destroying whatever they want to in the process), THEN find out they are in the wrong house? Of course, there WILL be arrests in this case, but the case will be dismissed. That is, if the defendants are white. And their parents have enough money to spread around. If they are black, 3-5 years....
Everyone here brings points to ponder. The question I have always wondered is when the Law Man breaks down the wrong door and totally destroy it who pays for the damage?
9:48 I.Q. isn't a consideration. But I question the I.Q. of someone who immediately calls into question that of competent officers acting in good faith. Unless there is reason to believe it is a multi-family dwelling based upon previously obtained knowledge or information obtained from the CI involved, it is likely that an illegally converted residence would have all ourward appearances of a single family residence. THEN when the team made entry, the target was inside....even though the target resided in the rear unit. The officers involved were acting in good faith and regardless of whether or not you agree, the SCOTUS has reviewed cases like this in the past and has determined that officers acting in good faith should, and subsequently the community at large, should not be punished for things not immediately apparent.
Dont even know why you post these types of things on here. It just causes the uneducated citizens to get an anti police attitude. Not to mention that there is more to that story I'm sure. You have to take the totality of the circumstances into consideration. As for one Anon. person, Police DO NOT deliberatly kick in wrong doors (but that proves my point). Most likely after the police did that they consulted with the States Attorney and the SA makes a decision on what to do. There is a lot missing from this story.
It's been mentioned already, question is: Should the officers have known the interior of the residence had been turned into two separate apartments. If records show the house is a single family dwelling, and officers didn't have information to the contrary, the officers, on the power of the search and seizure warrant, acted in good faith. The Supreme Court will be hearing a similar case in Kentucky Vs King.
Oh yeah so the word of a CI involved should ALWAYS be taken as 100% gospel without verification of the info 10:43?
Now we are supposed to belive the word of a confidential informant is infallible and CI's are incapable of erring or lying and not subject to verification.
It all comes down to the good faith thing. Depending on the lawyers and the judges and what circuit your in, it could go either way.
Property records are ALWAYS 100% correct-all the time without question!
!
You guys are foolish. CI's are used all the time. There info is always subject to scrutiny and their reliability is always part of the application/affidavit. My point was that if the CI doesn't mention that the building is a multi-family and there is no other indication of it being multi-family, there would be no reason for them to check for it. Don't read into it. Take the information at it's face. That's what the officers had to work with.
Yes... But it depends. It depends on timing. If they entered in good faith, saw the drugs and made the arrest then it's fair game.
If they saw the drugs after they knew it was not the correct place it's no good unless there are exigent circumstances.(ability to destroy evidence before they could obtain a search warrant). If that was the case a warantless search for drugs can be conducted.
Just like a traffic stop. They stop you for window tint and you produce a certificate that your windows are legal.
You can terminate the police encounter because the probable cause used to stop was no longer valid as no crime was committed. Any detention and what they may find therafter is beyond the scope of the stop and FOTPT.
Entry was made in good faith pursuant to a legally signed warrant that wasn't presented to the judge with intentionally omitted information. Good faith all around. Motion to suppress denied.
"Good faith" is a relatively recent phenomenon in the American legal system.
We are allowing our rights to be eroded, chipped away one right at a time.
A more important question, if the people,that wasn't the targets, had shot and killed the police, thinking they were intruders, would they get away with it?
No 2:32, because they would never have come out alive.
I would say that it would be a violation of their rights since they did nothing wrong for the Police to intrude. If you say the police were "acting in good faith" that opens a whole new can of worms to debat eas then the police could say they were acting under "good faith" anytimes they wanted to break the law and intrude on other peoples homes.
Good faith will always be subject to scrutiny by the courts after the fact.
will homeowners insurance cover the door?
No 2:32, because they would never have come out alive.
March 13, 2012 2:41 PM
You sound so confident of that. I guess we will never know for sure, until it happens one day.
If a court were to ever rule on this, and were to rule in favor of the homeowners, it would be perfectly legal for them to shoot the cops, since what the cops did was illegal.
In this day and age, with home invasions being rampant, who would blame them for shooting first and asking questions later?
I for one will not be surprised when this eventually happens.
It doesn't matter if you think it is right or wrong. I believe the odds are in favor for it to happen.
4:17, Look up the Kathryn Johnston shooting.
4:17, Look up the Kathryn Johnston shooting.
March 13, 2012 7:35 PM
why?
4:17, Look up the Kathryn Johnston shooting.
March 13, 2012 7:35 PM
Ok, I did. Thank you. I am surprised the cops got time.
Interesting story and a shining example of rouge cops/department.
One of the lessons learned from this is do not give the cops a warning shot. Shoot to kill.
Which is exactly what they did, although out of 39 shots, they only hit her 5 or 6 times. AND wounded each other in the process.
I expect more of these types of stories to surface in the near future. Hopefully with different outcomes.
She is dead. Their careers are over. Wonder what they will do when they are released. Sell drugs?
Thankfully they will never be cops again.
Post a Comment