quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
If the police actually had probable cause to believe the person they were searching for was in that apartment they didn't need a warrant. They would simply claim exigent circumstances and enter. Anything they found besides the fugitive would be inadmissible though so by not entering it says to me they were interested in something besides the supposed fugitive.

Probable Cause is different from police intuition. In the first instance, the police officers could point out one or more circumstances leading to the determination something is wrong. Intuition is the knowing something is wrong, but no evidence to indicate something is wrong. Police officers can legally act on Probable Cause issues (In the moment), not issues based on their institution (need more tangible evidence).

LEO's get a lot of leeway in exigent circumstances, i.e. in "hot pursuit." That guy could not have turned them away if they really though the suspect was in his apartment and he was wanted for a felony.

Were they in 'hot pursuit' in that video? They seem to be standing around on the guy's porch like they are waiting for a bus. Hardly qualifies as 'hot pursuit'. Again, there is probable cause and institution. They didn't have either to go on; they were just going door-to-door.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
They were trying to search that apartment for something else.

And what was that? You have no evidence they were doing that. If your going to accuse someone of wrong doing, you are going to need some evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If the police actually had probable cause to believe the person they were searching for was in that apartment they didn't need a warrant. They would simply claim exigent circumstances and enter. Anything they found besides the fugitive would be inadmissible though so by not entering it says to me they were interested in something besides the supposed fugitive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


About six months ago, I was sick for three days. I felt awful.

I'm not normally one to be very good with keeping up with my cell phone, anyway and for those three days, the cell phone was upstairs and I was, basically, downstairs.

On the third day, I'm on the couch, in my sweats and a bathrobe and slippers. A knock comes on the door and I open it.

A Kingston, Pennsyltucky uniformed officer says: "Are you Michael ________?"

I said I was and he said: "Call your uncle. He's worried about you."

I thanked the officer and explained that I'd been sick and but, I'd call him, right away to alleviate his fears.

Then, the officer said: "We don't have anything on you. Can you show me some ID?"

My jaw literally hung open. The cop reached to open my screen door and I held it closed.

I said: "Officer, I'm sick. I'm in my home, in sweats. You asked me my name and I confirmed it and now you're trying to gain entry to my house and asking me to re-identify myself?"

He said: "Well, we don't have anything on you"

and I said: "Yet, you knew where to come to find Michael _______?"

I reported the incident to a sergeant whose acquaintance I've made. It turns out the cop is on the job less than six months and he's a bit ... over zealous.

The sergeant assured me he'd talk to the youngster and that he wouldn't be in any trouble.

The issue, though (I would think), is that teaching this kind of procedure must be going on in the academies? I understand the "need" for people to be able to identify themselves out on the street but, the officer identified me !