PDA

View Full Version : Arrest Warrant



HondaMike
08-18-2008, 05:31 PM
First off, im located in Hillsborough County in Florida, now, if someone has an arrest warrant and a person is "hiding" them by allowing them to stay at their place, could they get in trouble for that?

HondaMike
08-18-2008, 05:49 PM
Thats true, now if the persons car is sitting outside in plain view, would that give them the same right to search as if you got pulled over and the officer smelled weed in your car?

HondaMike
08-18-2008, 08:11 PM
lol, well that cleared up an questions of smells, but what I ment was, if they know someone has a warrent, and they see their car at another persons residence, is that PC to believe they might be inside hiding, and allow them to search or is a SW still needed?

Monkeybomb
08-18-2008, 08:24 PM
.............................

Looker
08-18-2008, 08:43 PM
Monkeybomb, we try that out here, and I've just violated someone's constitutional right to be a crook.

And yes, I could hook up the homeowner for aiding and abetting a fugitive.

I thought the constitution applied everywhere???

Monkeybomb
08-18-2008, 08:50 PM
.................

kyle bermingham
08-18-2008, 09:13 PM
LEOs can only enter a house without permission to execute an arrest warrant if they reasonably believe the wanted person lives there, and they have a reasonable belief they are home. This is true in all fifty states, as states cannot give LEOs more authority than what the SC decides.

In Florida, if the homeowner won't let you enter to get the wanted person, and after you convey to them they are harboring a wanted person, they can be charged with Accessory after the fact. (This only applies if they aren't husband wife; parent child; or related by “consanguinity.”)

kyle bermingham
08-18-2008, 09:22 PM
Steagald v. United States 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642 (1981).

luckydog
08-18-2008, 10:09 PM
In Florida, if the homeowner won't let you enter to get the wanted person, and after you convey to them they are harboring a wanted person, they can be charged with Accessory after the fact. (This only applies if they aren't husband wife; parent child; or related by “consanguinity.”)

huh?

FireCop604
08-18-2008, 10:11 PM
As a matter of fact even a bondsman can kick in a door to get a person with an FTA if they know they are there. That one did go to the Supreme court and was upheld as good.

The constitution only protects citizens from their government and not other citizens. A Bondsman is not an agent of the government, therefore there are no constitutional issues associated with their activities.

luckydog
08-18-2008, 10:15 PM
The constitution only protects citizens from their government and not other citizens. A Bondsman is not an agent of the government, therefore there are no constitutional issues associated with their activities.

yes, but different states have different criminal on that. in one state it may be ok for the bondsman to do it, but in another it could be burglary and false imprisonment.

kyle bermingham
08-18-2008, 10:17 PM
huh?

I guess I could/should have been more specific. I am referring to a situation where the person with the arrest warrant doesn't live in the house, but happen to be there.

Monkeybomb
08-18-2008, 10:41 PM
The constitution only protects citizens from their government and not other citizens. A Bondsman is not an agent of the government, therefore there are no constitutional issues associated with their activities.

You are correct but criminal mischief and burglary charges could apply in some cases. If a bondsmen broke into a house claiming a person they were looking was there but in fact was not. And a wife, child ect was there Burglary charges may apply.

Monkeybomb
08-18-2008, 10:43 PM
I guess I could/should have been more specific. I am referring to a situation where the person with the arrest warrant doesn't live in the house, but happen to be there.

And you are correct about a wanted person being in a house as opposed to living there for a warrantless entry.

There is some gray area as to the definition of where a person lives. Such as a fugitve staying in a hotel etc. Thats why I stated I usually err on the side of caution and get a warrant.

Kilrain
08-18-2008, 11:21 PM
LEOs can only enter a house without permission to execute an arrest warrant if they reasonably believe the wanted person lives there, and they have a reasonable belief they are home.

What he said. The only thing I'll add is that regardless of where the person lives, the address on the warrant has to be the address you are entering. In other words, if the warrant address is 123 Main St. and you reasonably believe that the wanted crook lives at 177 Center St. and you reasonably believe he is inside the residence, you will need a search warrant to enter the 177 Center St. without consent or exigent circumstances to serve the arrest warrant. As has been posted, see Steagald.

Monkeybomb
08-18-2008, 11:38 PM
Actually steagald does not cover an address on a warrant. Steagald is used as a guideline. In steagald they were using what an informant had told them. They knew he did not live there. There was a signifigant amount of time between when the in formant told them the suspect was there and when they contacted them they aslo never saw the suspect there. I would be willling to bet if the suspect was seen by the officers and they made entry and no contraband was found this would have been a much different ruling. This is comparing apples to oranges. There are many ways to verify where someone lives. For instance this would automatically cover a transient person if your opinion was case law. We all know most criminals are transient and often give either bogus addresses or Moms address because they don't want to be easily captured again. As always a warrant is your safest bet but not always required.

K9Tom
08-19-2008, 12:06 AM
Here is a scenario for you that we have encountered. I see John Smith, who I know from past arrests, in a residence that I respond to for a (insert radio call). I know John Smith is wanted and I know John Smith is inside because I saw him looking out the window when I approached the house. I do not need a warrant to go into that house to get John Smith if he lives there or not. If you prevent me from arresting him on the valid arrest warrant, you will join him for a ride to jail.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 12:10 AM
Actually steagald does not cover an address on a warrant. Steagald is used as a guideline. In steagald they were using what an informant had told them. They knew he did not live there. There was a signifigant amount of time between when the in formant told them the suspect was there and when they contacted them they aslo never saw the suspect there. I would be willling to bet if the suspect was seen by the officers and they made entry and no contraband was found this would have been a much different ruling. This is comparing apples to oranges. There are many ways to verify where someone lives. For instance this would automatically cover a transient person if your opinion was case law. We all know most criminals are transient and often give either bogus addresses or Moms address because they don't want to be easily captured again. As always a warrant is your safest bet but not always required.

I'm not sure what version of Steagald you are reading, but here is the decision:

U.S. Supreme Court
Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)

Steagald v. United States

No. 79-6777

Argued January 14, 1981

Decided April 21, 1981

451 U.S. 204

Syllabus

Pursuant to an arrest warrant for one Lyons, Drug Enforcement Administration agents entered petitioner's home to search for Lyons without first obtaining a search warrant. In the course of searching the home, the agents found cocaine and other incriminating evidence, but did not find Lyons. Petitioner was then arrested and indicted on federal drug charges. His pretrial motion to suppress all evidence uncovered during the search of his home on the ground that it was illegally obtained because the agents had failed to obtain a search warrant was denied by the District Court, and petitioner was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

1. The Government is precluded from contending in this Court that petitioner lacked an expectation of privacy in his searched home sufficient to prevail on his Fourth Amendment claim where this argument was never raised in the courts below, but, rather, the Government had made contrary assertions in those courts, and acquiesced in their contrary findings. Pp. 451 U. S. 208-211.

2. The search in question violated the Fourth Amendment where it took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. Pp. 451 U. S. 211-222.

(a) Absent exigent circumstances or consent, a home may not be searched without a warrant. Two distinct interests were implicated by the search in this case -- Lyons' interest in being free from an unreasonable seizure and petitioner's interest in being free from an unreasonable search of his home. Because the arrest warrant for Lyons addressed only the former interest, the search of petitioner's home was no more reasonable from petitioner's perspective than it would have been if conducted in the absence of any warrant. The search therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 451 U. S. 211-216.

The complete text can be read here:

Steagald (http://supreme.justia.com/us/451/204/case.html)

This is the key issue from that decision(important points in bold):

“The question before us is a narrow one. [Footnote 6] The search at issue here took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. Except in such special situations, we have consistently held that the entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless done pursuant to a warrant. @See 445 U. S. 13-15 (1948). Thus, as we recently observed:

"[I]n terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant."

Payton v. New York, supra, at 445 U. S. 590. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 403 U. S. 474 475, 403 U. S. 477-478 (1971); Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 357 U. S. 497-498 (1958); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 269 U. S. 32-33 (1925). Here, of course, the agents had a warrant -- one authorizing the arrest of Ricky Lyons. However, the Fourth Amendment claim here is not being raised by Ricky Lyons. Instead the challenge to the search is asserted by a person, not named in the warrant, who was convicted on the basis of evidence uncovered during a search of his residence for Ricky Lyons. Thus, the narrow issue before us is whether an arrest warrant -- as opposed to a search warrant -- is adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant when their homes are searched without their consent and in the absence of exigent circumstances.

The purpose of a warrant is to allow a neutral judicial officer to assess whether the police have probable cause to make an arrest or conduct a search. As we have often explained, the placement of this checkpoint between the Government and the citizen implicitly acknowledges that an "officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime," Johnson v. United States, supra, at 333 U. S. 14, may lack sufficient objectivity to weigh correctly the strength of the evidence supporting the contemplated action against the individual's interests in protecting his own liberty and the privacy of his home. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra, at 403 U. S. 449-451; McDonald v. United States, 335 U. S. 451, 335 U. S. 455-456 (1948). However, while an arrest warrant and a search warrant both serve to subject the probable cause determination
of the police to judicial review, the interests protected by the two warrants differ. An arrest warrant is issued by a magistrate upon a showing that probable cause exists to believe that the subject of the warrant has committed an offense, and thus the warrant primarily serves to protect an individual from an unreasonable seizure. A search warrant, in contrast, is issued upon a showing of probable cause to believe that the legitimate object of a search is located in a particular place, and therefore safeguards an individual's interest in the privacy of his home and possessions against the unjustified intrusion of the police.

Thus, whether the arrest warrant issued in this case adequately safeguarded the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment depends upon what the warrant authorized the agents to do. To be sure, the warrant embodied a judicial finding that there was probable cause to believe that Ricky Lyons had committed a felony, and the warrant therefore authorized the officers to seize Lyons. However, the agents sought to do more than use the warrant to arrest Lyons in public place or in his home; instead, they relied on the warrant as legal authority to enter the home of a third person based on their belief that Ricky Lyons might be a guest there. Regardless of how reasonable this belief might have been, it was never subjected to the detached scrutiny of a judicial officer. Thus, while the warrant in this case may have protected Lyons from an unreasonable seizure, it did absolutely nothing to protect petitioner's privacy interest in being free from an unreasonable invasion and search of his home. Instead, petitioner's only protection from an illegal entry and search was the agent's personal determination of probable cause. In the absence of exigent circumstances, we have consistently held that such judicially untested determinations are not reliable enough to justify an entry into a person's home to arrest him without a warrant, or a search of a home for objects in the absence of a search warrant.”

And for the topping on the cake, the Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Bottom line, if the address, or at the very least a description of the address, on the warrant doesn’t match, I don’t know how you can make the assertion that an entry can be made without consent, exigent circumstances or a warrant that meets 4th Amendment requirements.

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 12:20 AM
Here is a scenario for you that we have encountered. I see John Smith, who I know from past arrests, in a residence that I respond to for a (insert radio call). I know John Smith is wanted and I know John Smith is inside because I saw him looking out the window when I approached the house. I do not need a warrant to go into that house to get John Smith if he lives there or not. If you prevent me from arresting him on the valid arrest warrant, you will join him for a ride to jail.

If "John Smith" doesn't live there you need a search warrant. Many officers/detectives have done this without a warrant, and nothing was said; this doesn't mean it is legal. If the wanted person had anything in their pockets (evidence, drugs, etc.) it would be suppressed and the people that live at the residence could sue for unlawful government intrusion.

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 12:24 AM
seagald doesn't address any of the issues I brought up. The only address issue it covers is that on a search warrant not an arrest warrant. It specifically states they knew he didn't live there. It also states they did not see him, they entered anyway, They didn't find him, they found contraband, contraband was suppressed. It was a bad search.

Your confusing a situation where you Know, can identify a wanted suspect and are at his residence (not neccesarily the address on an arrest warrant).

You may also be confusing your States laws or Department policy with what is legally allowed. The 4th amendmanet covers you from UNREASONABLE searches ans seizure. Steagald was a good ruling by the SC. But it allows not prevents the situation I have discussed. This was an issue of steagalds rights being violated as his home was searched. He did not have a warrant and the suspect did not live there.

How does steagald state that the address on the arrest warrant is the only one where it applies? The portion that you highlighted is for a search warrant.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 12:27 AM
If "John Smith" doesn't live there you need a search warrant. Many officers/detectives have done this without a warrant, and nothing was said; this doesn't mean it is legal. If the wanted person had anything in their pockets (evidence, drugs, etc.) it would be suppressed and the people that live at the residence could sue for unlawful government intrusion.

Yes sir, what you said. The reality is, this kind of thing happens every day HOWEVER if it is challenged in court and the crook has a half-decent attorney, the evidence will be suppressed. Also, the officer/detective/department can be sued and will lose.

Steagald addressed the issue that while the ARREST may be lawful based on the warrant, the ENTRY into the area in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy was not. The very difference between an arrest warrant and search warrant.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 12:31 AM
How does steagald state that the address on the arrest warrant is the only one where it applies? The portion that you highlighted is for a search warrant.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Remember, that Steagald is an interpretation of the 4th Amendment. What part of the 4th Amendment are you not reading?

As an aside, I will reread your situation to confirm that I didn't miss something.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 12:37 AM
Can't speak for Florida. But here if i know for a fact that the person with the warrant is in the house I can get them. If I know they are in the house and you lie to me You are also going to get charged with Obstruction and Harboring a fugitive. I will usually err on the side of caution and get a warrant anyway. Then the person harboring them will get a free ride to jail as well.

I assume you are talking about this, correct?

According to Steagald and the 4th Amendment, you can't enter the residence to effect the arrest unless you have consent, exigent circumstances or the address you are entering is listed(or at least described) on the arrest warrant. If you don't have any of those, you will need a search warrant(Steagald warrant) to enter the residence.

Am I missing something here? If so, point it out specifically.

As an aside, I'm sure you've written search warrants. Ever notice that you have to describe, specifically, the place to be searched. You can't just say, 111 Main St., Anytown. You describe the actual residence in detail and it's location, single story dwelling house, white in color, numbers 111 adjacent to the front door, faces Main St. in Anytown, etc. That is a 4th Amendment requirement, as I'm sure you are aware. Why would that apply to search warrants and not arrest warrants? Also, in reading the 4th, it says:

"and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If they(the founding Fathers) meant that you could enter ANY house to serve an arrest warrant, regardless of the circumstances, the operative word would have been "OR" not "AND." The SCOTUS recognized this in Steagald.

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 12:40 AM
Again that is for a search warrant not an arrest warrant. If you see a suspect in his home (for instance he has a felony Murder warrant from Florida) You know him and can see him sitting in his living room in Chicago.(his new home) You do not need a search warrant to get him. The fact that the Florida arrest warrant has a florida address does not nullify the ability to arrest him in Chicago, As long as you know it's him you are covered.

Unless I am really misunderstanding you, you believe that an arrest warrant is no good unless you have the current address on it. If so i want to be a fugitive where you work........

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 12:42 AM
Have you ever gotten a arrest warrant with a description of a residence on it? That is for a search warrant. Seagald is for a 3rd party not the susbject of the arrest warrant. Read the whole thing.

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 12:50 AM
Here is the issues that were argued by Steagald. This is why what I'm talking about is legal.

“The question before us is a narrow one. [Footnote 6] The search at issue here took place in the absence of consent or exigent circumstances. Except in such special situations, we have consistently held that the entry into a home to conduct a search or make an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless done pursuant to a warrant. @See 445 U. S. 13-15 (1948). Thus, as we recently observed:

"[i]n terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant."

Payton v. New York, supra, at 445 U. S. 590. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 403 U. S. 474 475, 403 U. S. 477-478 (1971); Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 357 U. S. 497-498 (1958); Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 269 U. S. 32-33 (1925). Here, of course, the agents had a warrant -- one authorizing the arrest of Ricky Lyons. However, the Fourth Amendment claim here is not being raised by Ricky Lyons. Instead the challenge to the search is asserted by a person, not named in the warrant, who was convicted on the basis of evidence uncovered during a search of his residence for Ricky Lyons. Thus, the narrow issue before us is whether an arrest warrant -- as opposed to a search warrant -- is adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant when their homes are searched without their consent and in the absence of exigent circumstances.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 12:55 AM
Again that is for a search warrant not an arrest warrant. If you see a suspect in his home (for instance he has a felony Murder warrant from Florida) You know him and can see him sitting in his living room in Chicago.(his new home) You do not need a search warrant to get him. The fact that the Florida arrest warrant has a florida address does not nullify the ability to arrest him in Chicago, As long as you know it's him you are covered.

Unless I am really misunderstanding you, you believe that an arrest warrant is no good unless you have the current address on it. If so i want to be a fugitive where you work........

Just to get this straight, according to your interpretation of the law, I can enter ANY residence that I have reasonable suspicion to believe that a subject with a warrant is in, correct? So if I know Joe Crook drives a certain car and I see his car parked in front of some random house, I can force entry and search the house for Joe Crook? Really?

As for you situation, why wouldn't you either maintain a visual on the suspect and obtain a search warrant in compliance with the Constitution or try a knock and talk and see what developed. If there was no answer, you get a Steagald warrant and force entry. That is the proper and Constitutionally compliant way of handling the situation, correct?

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 01:04 AM
I'll highlight my exact scenario that you quoted. See if it matches what you just said. You are not reading or comprehending what I wrote. I never said any house. I said and bolded it for you his house.



Originally Posted by Monkeybomb http://forums.officer.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1376107#post1376107)
Again that is for a search warrant not an arrest warrant. If you see a suspect in his home (for instance he has a felony Murder warrant from Florida) You know him and can see him sitting in his living room in Chicago.(his new home) You do not need a search warrant to get him. The fact that the Florida arrest warrant has a florida address does not nullify the ability to arrest him in Chicago, As long as you know it's him you are covered.

Unless I am really misunderstanding you, you believe that an arrest warrant is no good unless you have the current address on it. If so i want to be a fugitive where you work........



Just to get this straight, according to your interpretation of the law, I can enter ANY residence that I have reasonable suspicion to believe that a subject with a warrant is in, correct? So if I know Joe Crook drives a certain car and I see his car parked in front of some random house, I can force entry and search the house for Joe Crook? Really?

As for you situation, why wouldn't you either maintain a visual on the suspect and obtain a search warrant in compliance with the Constitution or try a knock and talk and see what developed. If there was no answer, you get a Steagald warrant and force entry. That is the proper and Constitutionally compliant way of handling the situation, correct?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 01:05 AM
Have you ever gotten a arrest warrant with a description of a residence on it? That is for a search warrant. Seagald is for a 3rd party not the susbject of the arrest warrant. Read the whole thing.

I get stacks of arrest warrants with addresses on them. You don't? Additionally, we have Ramey warrants, or precomplaint(DA filing) warrants that may or may not have a description of a residence on them, if there is no actual address. That doesn't allow me to enter ANY house I have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that the person named on the warrant may be. That is for the independent judicial officer(magistrate/judge) to decide. Hence the description/address requirement to enter a residence pursuant to a search warrant.

You apparently think that the term "warrant," regardless of it's context or intent, allows you to enter, without consent or exigent circumstances or compliance with the 4th Amendment, into any place you have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a person may be. That is simply not true.

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 01:09 AM
To make a legal entry to arrest based on an arrest warrant you need two things: a "reasonable belief" the person is wanted; and a "reasonable belief" it is there residence.

I believe the two of you that are debating both agree on this. I think the question is whether the place where the suspect lives must be on the arrest warrant. I am certain it doesn't.

If the arrest warrant does read an address that is the actual address of the suspect, it can be a partial basis for "reasonable belief." However, if the address listed is not the correct one, the litmus test is still reasonable belief that the dwelling is the residence of wanted person.

Regarding search warrants: I have written some and I agree that the "Place to be searched" must be quite specific. I think that is, however, a separate issue than what governs a lawful entry for an arrest warrant.

Obviously, it may be more restrictive in other states.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 01:17 AM
Again that is for a search warrant not an arrest warrant. If you see a suspect in his home (for instance he has a felony Murder warrant from Florida) You know him and can see him sitting in his living room in Chicago.(his new home) You do not need a search warrant to get him. The fact that the Florida arrest warrant has a florida address does not nullify the ability to arrest him in Chicago, As long as you know it's him you are covered.

Unless I am really misunderstanding you, you believe that an arrest warrant is no good unless you have the current address on it. If so i want to be a fugitive where you work........

MY ANSWER(AND THE SUPREME COURT’S ANSWER) IS NO!

You drive by Joe Crooks house at 111 Main St., Chicago and see him through the open window. You know from briefing that he is wanted in Florida based on an arrest warrant for murder. The address on the arrest warrant is 222 Florida St., Miami. You can’t simply stop, run up to the door, kick it in and arrest him. You need a Steagald warrant. That was the point of Steagald in the first place.

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 01:18 AM
I have written and executed tons of search warrants. That is correct for Search warrants. There Should be an address and a description of the place to be searched.

I have also written a lot of arrest warrants. If I have an address, it is put on the arrest warrant. I have also served a ton of arrest warrants. Never have I ever seen a description of a residence on an arrest warrant. I think Kilrain has his mind set on one thing and doesn't see the point I'm trying to make.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 01:21 AM
I believe the two of you that are debating both agree on this. I think the question is whether the place where the suspect lives must be on the arrest warrant. I am certain it doesn't.

I don't think the suspect's actual address must be on the warrant. It must only be on the warrant if you intend to rely on the warrant to enter that address, without consent or exigent circumstances, based on the warrant.

Aside from that, you must have a separate search warrant(Steagald warrant) to enter an address not on, or described in, the original warrant to effect the arrest.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 01:24 AM
I have also written a lot of arrest warrants. If I have an address, it is put on the arrest warrant. I have also served a ton of arrest warrants. Never have I ever seen a description of a residence on an arrest warrant. I think Kilrain has his mind set on one thing and doesn't see the point I'm trying to make.

It's not that I have my mind set, I think, perhaps, you are not accurately making your point because what you are saying is in direct conflict with both Steagald and the 4th Amendment.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to follow your logic.

:)

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 01:25 AM
MY ANSWER(AND THE SUPREME COURT’S ANSWER) IS NO!

You drive by Joe Crooks house at 111 Main St., Chicago and see him through the open window. You know from briefing that he is wanted in Florida based on an arrest warrant for murder. The address on the arrest warrant is 222 Florida St., Miami. You can’t simply stop, run up to the door, kick it in and arrest him. You need a Steagald warrant. That was the point of Steagald in the first place.

I would have you read steagald again. I think that is your interpretation. Many fugitive units have operated under this ruling and been well inside the law, and case law. See KB's post above. California may have State case law that prevents this, but it is clearly not covered in the Steagald ruling.

You must still follow normal operational proceedures. Simple cop things like trying to make contact first. If they refuse to answer the door or deny he's there you may lawfully enter his residence to effect the arrest.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 01:31 AM
You must still follow normal operational proceedures. Simple cop things like trying to make contact first. If they refuse to answer the door or deny he's there you may lawfully enter his residence to effect the arrest.

ABSOLUTELY............provided that his residence is either listed by address or otherwise described on the arrest warrant.

If not, I'll again refer you to the 4th Amendment and ask you to explain the discrepancy:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

What part of that is not clear? What other case law is there that says you can enter a residence without consent or exigent circumstances based on a warrant that doesn't list or otherwise describe the place you are SEARCHING?

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 01:33 AM
I don't think the suspect's actual address must be on the warrant. It must only be on the warrant if you intend to rely on the warrant to enter that address, without consent or exigent circumstances, based on the warrant.

Aside from that, you must have a separate search warrant(Steagald warrant) to enter an address not on, or described in, the original warrant to effect the arrest.

I respectfully disagree. I am certain this is not so based on the SCOTUS decision I cited earlier, nor is it so in Florida; it may be different in your state. The meaning of the Steagald v. United States decision is that LEOs cannot enter a third party residence, regardless if there is a wanted person inside. This decision doesn't abrogate our right to enter the wanted persons house if it dissimilar to what the arrest warrant reads.

I have never heard of someone changing an already active/valid arrest warrant to read a different address.

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 01:34 AM
It's not that I have my mind set, I think, perhaps, you are not accurately making your point because what you are saying is in direct conflict with both Steagald and the 4th Amendment.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to follow your logic.

:)

I enjoy a good debate. I highlighted the arguements in the steagald case/ruling. Steagald was about a third party not named in any warrant (in this case an arrest warrant) The person they were looking for Lyons wasn't there. Lyon's didn't live there. They searched anyway. Bad search. They found contraband and arrested steagald. Bad search, evidence suppressed. Good ruling.

It clearly states in the ruling there was a warrant for Lyons.


Here, of course, the agents had a warrant -- one authorizing the arrest of Ricky Lyons. However, the Fourth Amendment claim here is not being raised by Ricky Lyons. Instead the challenge to the search is asserted by a person, not named in the warrant, who was convicted on the basis of evidence uncovered during a search of his residence for Ricky Lyons.

The warrant for Lyons did not cover a search of anothers home Steagald, for Lyons. Steagalds complaint was they entered his house looking for Lyons (who didn't live there) They found drugs and charged Steagald. This is a no-go and not covered by the arrest warrant for Lyons.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 01:53 AM
I respectfully disagree. I am certain this is not so based on the SCOTUS decision I cited earlier, nor is it so in Florida; it may be different in your state. The meaning of the Steagald v. United States decision is that LEOs cannot enter a third party residence, regardless if there is a wanted person inside. This decision doesn't abrogate our right to enter the wanted persons house if it dissimilar to what the arrest warrant reads.

I have never heard of someone changing an already active/valid arrest warrant to read a different address.

I respect your training, experience and opinion however if you can explain how, what you are saying, is not in violation of the 4th Amendment, I'd appreciate it.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 02:02 AM
I enjoy a good debate. I highlighted the arguements in the steagald case/ruling. Steagald was about a third party not named in any warrant (in this case an arrest warrant) The person they were looking for Lyons wasn't there. Lyon's didn't live there. They searched anyway. Bad search. They found contraband and arrested steagald. Bad search, evidence suppressed. Good ruling.

It clearly states in the ruling there was a warrant for Lyons.



The warrant for Lyons did not cover a search of anothers home Steagald, for Lyons. Steagalds complaint was they entered his house looking for Lyons (who didn't live there) They found drugs and charged Steagald. This is a no-go and not covered by the arrest warrant for Lyons.

Awesome and absolutely however, apparently, I am reading Steagald a little further than you and applying it to the rest of the 4th Amendment.

Let me ask you this, do you really think that the Constitution allows you to enter ANY house you choose because you have an arrest warrant and probable cause? If so, that's cool, cause that's what I'm getting from you. Aside from that, all I can recommend is that you study 4th Amendment cases and law a little closer.

I'm not trying to talk down to you or anyone else and if it comes off that way, I apologize in advance. I'm still trying to figure out what, Constitutionally, allows you to enter a residence based on a warrant that doesn't list that residence(or at least it's description)? Case law? State law(any state will do, at least then I'll understand)? Training?

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 02:24 AM
Ok here is another case specifically for warrant arrests


U.S. Supreme Court

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)


Here is a quote then the link to the case.


Fourth Amendment was to the effect that a warrant was required for a home arrest, or, at the minimum, that there were substantial risks in proceeding without one. Although a majority of the States that have taken a position on the question permit warrantless home arrests even in the absence of exigent circumstances, there is an obvious declining trend, and there is by no means the kind of virtual unanimity on this question that was present in United States v. Watson, supra, with regard to warrantless public arrests. And, unlike the situation in Watson, no federal statutes have been cited to indicate any congressional determination that warrantless entries into the home are "reasonable." Pp. 445 U. S. 590 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/573/case.html#590)-601.
(c) For Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within. Pp. 445 U. S. 602 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/573/case.html#602)-603.


http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/573/

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 02:28 AM
This is also directly from steagald

(c) A search warrant requirement under the circumstances of this case will not significantly impede effective law enforcement efforts. An arrest warrant alone suffices to enter a suspect's own residence, and, if probable cause exists, no warrant is required to apprehend a suspected felon in a public place. Moreover, the exigent-circumstances doctrine significantly limits the situations in which a search warrant is needed. And in those situations in which a search warrant is necessary, the inconvenience incurred by the police is generally insignificant. In any event, whatever practical problems there are in requiring a search warrant in cases such as this, they cannot outweigh the constitutional interest at stake in protecting the right of presumptively innocent people to be secure in their homes from unjustified, forcible intrusions by the government. Pp. 220-222.

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 02:35 AM
Here is a decent resource for search and siezure guidance.
http://www.kscoplaw.com/outlines/ssoutline.htm

Quote from this resource

Conversely, a felony arrest warrant based upon probable cause carries with it the limited right to enter the home of the subject named in the warrant to effect the arrest if the officer has a reasonable basis to believe the proposed arrestee is in the residence when the officers make entry. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602-03 (1980).

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 02:35 AM
This is also directly from steagald

(c) A search warrant requirement under the circumstances of this case will not significantly impede effective law enforcement efforts. An arrest warrant alone suffices to enter a suspect's own residence, and, if probable cause exists, no warrant is required to apprehend a suspected felon in a public place. Moreover, the exigent-circumstances doctrine significantly limits the situations in which a search warrant is needed. And in those situations in which a search warrant is necessary, the inconvenience incurred by the police is generally insignificant. In any event, whatever practical problems there are in requiring a search warrant in cases such as this, they cannot outweigh the constitutional interest at stake in protecting the right of presumptively innocent people to be secure in their homes from unjustified, forcible intrusions by the government. Pp. 220-222.

Yes sir, I've read it. If you'll see my prior posts.

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle bermingham
I respectfully disagree. I am certain this is not so based on the SCOTUS decision I cited earlier, nor is it so in Florida; it may be different in your state. The meaning of the Steagald v. United States decision is that LEOs cannot enter a third party residence, regardless if there is a wanted person inside. This decision doesn't abrogate our right to enter the wanted persons house if it dissimilar to what the arrest warrant reads.

I have never heard of someone changing an already active/valid arrest warrant to read a different address.

I respect your training, experience and opinion however if you can explain how, what you are saying, is not in violation of the 4th Amendment, I'd appreciate it.
__________________


That is a fair request, especially since I am asserting something, it is only fair I should be able to back it up.

However, I first must preface my answer with some background. Additionally, I also want to convey I am not trying to be didactic, I just have to explain some things regarding Florida's legal system. First and foremost, we have a "conformity clause" in our constitution. What this means, in theory, is that Florida's decisions, whether from the Florida Supreme Court or the District Court of Appeals, should conform SCOTUS decisions, and not be more restrictive. With that in mind, I, as someone who has always craved legal erudition, have found it considerably easier to find and study SCOTUS decisions than the multitude of esoteric decisions penned by the DCAs. Additionally, when a Florida DCA makes case law, it almost never contravenes what I already knew to be case law.

With that out of the way, I have two cites for you: 1) W.R. v State , 688 So.2d 1000 (2d DCA 1997). The problem with this cite is it is just about impossible to find due to the time extant. It is used as a cite for the "reasonable belief" of residence and "reasonable belief" they are home. Now, I understand this is circular logic; i.e., I am answering your question by giving you something, then telling you what it means; however, this is the best I can do short of going to a library. 2) Florida Statute 901.19 (1). This statute reads a bit general and broad. It is only coupled with the understanding of what the Payton v. NY and Stealgard decisions mean. What I am trying to imply here is that there are DCA decisions that elucidate the two aforementioned SCOTUS decisions, and that the "Florida Legal Guidelines," which are written by experts (people who write our stature books- "The Miami Dade book," which is extremely limited, and the Lexis Nexus Florida Statute Book (a much better source)) explain what is meant by 901.19. The gist of the Florida Legal Guideline is what I have already espoused.

Now, I know I may have answered your question, but fallen short of fully proving my case. If I had more time, and a hurricane wasn't bearing down on my house, I would try to find the wording of the Florida Legal Guideline online and attempt to cut and paste.

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 02:41 AM
I have a pretty fair amount of experience with this. It is valid. I have been in the business for a long time. I have 3 good frinds who run fugitive units that I work very closely with. You can execute an arrest warrant at a suspects home without a search warrant if you know they are there. Now I again state if in doubt get a SW. But you are well within the law and Costitution to enter the suspects home to make the arrest. There are no restrictions about an address on the arrest warrant.

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 02:48 AM
I have a pretty fair amount of experience with this. It is valid. I have been in the business for a long time. I have 3 good frinds who run fugitive units that I work very closely with. You can execute an arrest warrant at a suspects home without a search warrant if you know they are there. Now I again state if in doubt get a SW. But you are well within the law and Costitution to enter the suspects home to make the arrest. There are no restrictions about an address on the arrest warrant. It must simply be a Felony warrant...................... Your state may have a more restrictive law. Mine does not.

Wow, In Florida the only requirement is the person is wanted. There is no discernment between misdemeanor or felony.

You may want to check, it might just be your department policy. If it isn't, then Colorado is more restrictive than SCOTUS calls for.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 02:54 AM
Ok here is another case specifically for warrant arrests


U.S. Supreme Court

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)


Here is a quote then the link to the case.


http://supreme.justia.com/us/445/573/

Good times, I've read Payton before.

So how, exactly, are you going to prove that he "lives" there? Drive by and see him? That proves he lives there? Really? Perhaps a stakeout for a week or two? That proves he lives there? Really? Check with the City/County? That proves he lives there? Really?

Your scenario is as follows:

"Again that is for a search warrant not an arrest warrant. If you see a suspect in his home (for instance he has a felony Murder warrant from Florida) You know him and can see him sitting in his living room in Chicago.(his new home) You do not need a search warrant to get him. The fact that the Florida arrest warrant has a florida address does not nullify the ability to arrest him in Chicago, As long as you know it's him you are covered."

How, exactly, do you intend to prove that it “is his home” and he is “sitting in his living room?” Because you know? That won’t hold up. Maybe telephone, electric, cable or rent bills however those usually require search warrants. If that’s the case, then why wouldn’t you write a proper search warrant to ENTER the residence and arrest the suspect for the out of state warrant?

What I’m saying is that while your arrest based on the warrant may hold up, your ENTRY into the residence will not(read that to mean unConstitutional) unless you have more than just an arrest warrant with a different address. Unless you can “prove” it is his address. Good luck with that, based on an arrest warrant only. If he has a lawyer worth a damn, you are getting sued and losing for a 4th Amendment violation pursuant to the U.S.C. Worse than that, you kick in the door and a gunfight occurs. You know will happen then.

Perhaps we are arguing conservative vs. liberal interpretation regarding the role of governmental law enforcement?

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 02:56 AM
I believe it is just our policy for the Felony warrants. Misdemeanors are not as big a priority. We try to get them but the main focus of our fugitive units are to get the Felony warrants taken care of first. There is a never ending supply of them.............

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 02:59 AM
I have a pretty fair amount of experience with this. It is valid. I have been in the business for a long time. I have 3 good frinds who run fugitive units that I work very closely with. You can execute an arrest warrant at a suspects home without a search warrant if you know they are there. Now I again state if in doubt get a SW. But you are well within the law and Costitution to enter the suspects home to make the arrest. There are no restrictions about an address on the arrest warrant. It must simply be a Felony warrant...................... Your state may have a more restrictive law. Mine does not.

Say bro', I have more than a passing experience in law enforcement also and I appreciate and respect your opinion, please don't think I don't, I'm just still trying to reconcile what you are saying with case law and the Constitution, because it doesn't seem to fit, that's all.

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 03:03 AM
Good times, I've read Payton before.

So how, exactly, are you going to prove that he "lives" there? Drive by and see him? That proves he lives there? Really? Perhaps a stakeout for a week or two? That proves he lives there? Really? Check with the City/County? That proves he lives there? Really?

You don't need to "prove" he (or she) lives there. You need a reasonable belief.

What does this mean? I don't know, but it is the law.

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 03:05 AM
Kilrain,
I guess you are too set in your ways. If you can't figure out how to tell where someone lives. I can't help you. I'm guessing your not in a fugitive unit. If you see someone sitting in their living room and know them. And you can't figure out they are home I feel for you. You do what you think is right. If you want to limit yourself and you have the resources to waste go for it.

I have never needed a warrant for many of the ways you have mentioned nor others that are commonly available to LEO's. I will not discuss tactics for finding people on an open forum.

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 03:05 AM
Double post.

Monkeybomb
08-19-2008, 03:06 AM
Double Post

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 03:07 AM
You don't need to "prove" he (or she) lives there. You need a reasonable belief.

What does this mean? I don't know, but it is the law.

Oh I see..........."reasonable belief"..........that's awesome.

So, you see him through the window, go up to the door, knock and announce, no answer(let's say 30 seconds), force entry and make the arrest.

Okay.........I stand corrected...............:)

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 03:10 AM
You don't need to "prove" he (or she) lives there. You need a reasonable belief.

What does this mean? I don't know, but it is the law.

Cool.

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 03:11 AM
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0234p-06.pdf

This is a US Marshals case of relevance. I gleaned it from Fourthamendment.com (I typed "warrant arrest residence" in the search bar).

This wonderful website should be read every day by LEOs. I have read many cases on this site that affirm what Monkeybomb and I are espousing.

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 03:14 AM
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0234p-06.pdf

This is a US Marshals case of relevance. I gleaned it from Fourthamendment.com (I typed "warrant arrest residence" in the search bar).

This wonderful website should be read every day by LEOs. I have read many cases on this site that affirm what Monkeybomb and I are espousing.

After further reading the case I realized it was a consensual entery; not as relevant as I thought. However, the answer to our debate should be found on this site.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 03:15 AM
Kilrain,
I guess you are too set in your ways. If you can't figure out how to tell where someone lives. I can't help you. I'm guessing your not in a fugitive unit. If you see someone sitting in their living room and know them. And you can't figure out they are home I feel for you. You do what you think is right. If you want to limit yourself and you have the resources to waste go for it.

I have never needed a warrant for many of the ways you have mentioned nor others that are commonly available to LEO's. I will not discuss tactics for finding people on an open forum.

Not set in my ways at all. Perhaps I have a different set of values that I apply to case law in regards to my job. No problem, just different cops doing their jobs in different ways. I understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat, as it were.

Regarding tactics, no problem, nobody(most of all me) expects you to say how you do, what you do.

:)

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 03:23 AM
Oh I see..........."reasonable belief"..........that's awesome.

So, you see him through the window, go up to the door, knock and announce, no answer(let's say 30 seconds), force entry and make the arrest.

Okay.........I stand corrected...............:)

It is a pretty cool concept, and one that is underutilized. If it is where they live, I would absolutely kick in the door. I have done it many times and even put it on the affidavit explaining why I had a legal right to be where I was when I made my discovery (drugs in residence; friend of wanted person arrested).

You don't need to see the person through the window, you just need a reasonable belief they are home.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 03:30 AM
It is a pretty cool concept, and one that is underutilized. If it is where they live, I would absolutely kick in the door. I have done it many times and even put it on the affidavit explaining why I had a legal right to be where I was when I made my discovery (drugs in residence; friend of wanted person arrested).

You don't need to see the person through the window, you just need a reasonable belief they are home.

Affidavit? I assume you mean your arrest report or whatever form you complete in support of your arrest.

Aside from that, I reckon' I've just seen too much, go too wrong to hang my bacon, or the bacon of someone I work with or train, on "reasonable belief" that a specific person lives at a specific place. Perhaps I am just past my prime or just old fashioned. In either case, I am willing to admit it.

But I'm still trying to reconcile it with the 4th Amendment.......................:)

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 03:33 AM
Not set in my ways at all. Perhaps I have a different set of values that I apply to case law in regards to my job. No problem, just different cops doing their jobs in different ways. I understand that there is more than one way to skin a cat, as it were.

Regarding tactics, no problem, nobody(most of all me) expects you to say how you do, what you do.

:)


I hope you are not impugning my values:). I am as liberal as they come, and don't take the fourth amendment lightly. I value suspect's rights, but have found the better I understand case law, the more it empowers me to catch the bad people. Additionally, I consistently make more, good, prosecutable arrests than those that vilify suspect's rights; Miranda; liberal judges; etc.

Also, I don't believe this is a subjective issue. Check with any warrants unit/squad that is worth their salt and they will explain the issue exactly as I have.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 03:37 AM
I hope you are not impugning my values:). I am as liberal as they come, and don't take the fourth amendment lightly. I value suspect's rights, but have found the better I understand case law, the more it empowers me to catch the bad people. Additionally, I consistently make more, good, prosecutable arrests than those that vilify suspect's rights; Miranda; liberal judges; etc.

Also, I don't believe this is a subjective issue. Check with any warrants unit/squad that is worth their salt and they will explain the issue exactly as I have.

In no way am I impugning your veracity, good sir! Merely pointing out a difference in opinion of free gentlemen in a modern society.

Take that for what it's worth.

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 03:45 AM
In no way am I impugning your veracity, good sir! Merely pointing out a difference in opinion of free gentlemen in a modern society.

Take that for what it's worth.

I was being facetious; I don't take offense to your style of locution. In addition, while I disagree with you, you posit your argument well.

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 04:53 AM
I was being facetious; I don't take offense to your style of locution. In addition, while I disagree with you, you posit your argument well.

Your verisimilitude was not in question, merely your ratiocination.

:D

Kilrain
08-19-2008, 05:09 AM
I hear you.

:)

kyle bermingham
08-19-2008, 08:18 AM
your all forgeting were talking about a 3rd party here. you cant enter a 3rd partys house without a SW even if you have a AW.

We haven't forgot this. I don't disagree with this; it is what the case law we were debating indicates.

blackhorse
08-19-2008, 10:29 AM
This is good reading, but I have one thing to add. You (anyone) make the wrong assumption and kicks my door down thinking there's a felon in my house is going to have a bad day. I will shoot without question. If you have a reasonable assumption that I am a bad guy and you enter my house based on that and that alone, you are going to end up dead of natural causes (4 or 5 240-grain .45 caliber hollow points). If you approach my house and knock with a search warrant, that is a completely different story. Just because you (and I) are police officers, does not give you (or I) the right to just go kicking down doors. It is not legal in your state or mine. That is the whole point of the Steagald ruling. You are not going to be able to articulate to a court why you believed what you did was the right thing in my case.

Remember, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Now me being a law-abiding citizen and you breaking down my door for whatever reason unbeknownst to me, will be cause for me to un-holster. You are breaking into my house and my first reaction is going to be to shoot. Unless you storm my house with 50 agents, someone is going out in a body bag.

I work the streets as well as you, and I know that in many cases, PC is based on how well you can articulate it in your report or in the courts, but we are not talking about the daily traffic we all handle, where we’re busting people for day to day crimes. We are talking about a cop making a decision on his belief, or assumption that he thinks he sees a wanted felon and makes an entry into a private dwelling. First and foremost, I would think it’s pretty rare where a cop working alone would take that level of authority without first consulting with his shift supervisors, and secondly, I doubt a shift supervisor would give permission to go busting down doors based solely on a officer’s assumption. However, if that did happen, you better be prepared for the consequences. And as I said, in my case, the consequences are going to be severe.

StudChris
08-20-2008, 04:40 AM
I'm not kicking a door in just because I "believe" someone is inside, but if I see you walk inside (or see you sitting on the couch), and you don't answer the first few knocks, then I'll come in and get you.

Jim1648
08-30-2008, 01:20 AM
This is good reading, but I have one thing to add. You (anyone) make the wrong assumption and kicks my door down thinking there's a felon in my house is going to have a bad day. I will shoot without question. If you have a reasonable assumption that I am a bad guy and you enter my house based on that and that alone, you are going to end up dead of natural causes (4 or 5 240-grain .45 caliber hollow points). If you approach my house and knock with a search warrant, that is a completely different story. Just because you (and I) are police officers, does not give you (or I) the right to just go kicking down doors. It is not legal in your state or mine. That is the whole point of the Steagald ruling. You are not going to be able to articulate to a court why you believed what you did was the right thing in my case.

Remember, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” Now me being a law-abiding citizen and you breaking down my door for whatever reason unbeknownst to me, will be cause for me to un-holster. You are breaking into my house and my first reaction is going to be to shoot. Unless you storm my house with 50 agents, someone is going out in a body bag.

I work the streets as well as you, and I know that in many cases, PC is based on how well you can articulate it in your report or in the courts, but we are not talking about the daily traffic we all handle, where we’re busting people for day to day crimes. We are talking about a cop making a decision on his belief, or assumption that he thinks he sees a wanted felon and makes an entry into a private dwelling. First and foremost, I would think it’s pretty rare where a cop working alone would take that level of authority without first consulting with his shift supervisors, and secondly, I doubt a shift supervisor would give permission to go busting down doors based solely on a officer’s assumption. However, if that did happen, you better be prepared for the consequences. And as I said, in my case, the consequences are going to be severe.

I thought about these posts today after we arrested a fugitive on a warrant this morning. I went with several other officers from various agencies and we did verify that the fugitive was inside the house. We did boot the door and the fugitive did get tased. We did not have a search warrant. I am glad that it wasn't Blackhorse's residence. I do know that laws vary from state to state, but here in Minnesota we have been instructed that on duty or off we will be judged as peace officers because of our training. Thus, if someone enters our residence and we execute them, we will be brought before a grand jury for murder. In Minnesota we have some strict rules on when deadly force can be used. Property crimes, even if they are a felony, aren't a license to kill here. If someone breaks into our home, even if we are off-duty, we would be expected to attempt to make an arrest.

I guess I just get a little nervous about people, especially if they are fellow cops, who seem ready, even eager, to take a life. I make entries into residences fairly often as a part of my duties with the sheriff's office. For example, a judge excludes a resident in a court order or commands entry, it could be a Writ of Restitution, Replevin, or even an Order For Protection. The point here is it is NOT a search warrant. It is a court order, but not a search warrant.

On the other hand, even if it is a search warrant, that is certainly no guarantee to the entry team that they will be safe. A number of years back Minneapolis Police executed a search warrant, at least one officer was shot and killed, and the homeowner was not charged by the grand jury. The homeowners story was that he was sleeping on the couch, was awakened by "someone breaking in", and he shot and killed a Minneapolis Police Officer. The homeowner also testified that he needed eyeglasses to see, but did not have them on at the time he shot and killed a police officer. I suppose the officers yelling "Police! Search Warrant!" didn't matter since he was nearsighted!

I suppose the next time I do an eviction, and the resident also happens to have a warrant for his or her arrest, I could simply go to the judge and tell him that his Writ of Restitution simply isn't good enough and that I also need a search warrant. Or when the judge issues an Order For Protection excluding the resident from his home, that I also need a search warrant. Or when I am issued a replevin to take a car from the garage, that I also need a search warrant. I would be laughed right out of chambers. We even get court orders to apprehend "patients" and return them to mental health facilities. Those are really grey areas because they command the sheriff to return them to a hospital, etc., but they clearly are NOT a search warrant.

For whatever it is worth, I have even had judges give very conflicting opinions on what their orders authorize! I guess one of the biggest things that I have learned from dealing with attorneys, judges, court orders, etc., is that they usually have absolutely no idea of what we need out on the street. I have had some judges that are so arrogant that they don't even want to hear new information that has come to light with regard to their court orders!

Also, we do have a term if I fail to comply with an order of the court, it is called Contempt of Court.

kyle bermingham
09-08-2008, 04:33 PM
http://www.patc.com/enewsletter/legal-answers/2-oct07.htm

I realize we have basically hashed this out, but I found a link that should alleviate any lingering doubt regarding the issue.

wirefire2
09-08-2008, 07:39 PM
Thats true, now if the persons car is sitting outside in plain view, would that give them the same right to search as if you got pulled over and the officer smelled weed in your car?

Not exactly, without a search warrant they can only check the IMMEDIATE area the arrest was made. Even if was inside the house. There is actually really good example of this in an old episode of Adam 12.

If I smelled weed in your car I get the car bumper to bumper. But if you were pulled over and there was nothing obvious and your friend had a warrant I can only check the "lunging" area of where he was sitting. Or known as the wingspan of his arms.

You can watch it for free on hulu.com

http://www.hulu.com/watch/11956/adam-12-log-123-courtroom#x-0,vepisode,1 (http://www.hulu.com/watch/11956/adam-12-log-123-courtroom#x-0,vepisode,1)

kyle bermingham
09-08-2008, 10:07 PM
If you arrest anyone from a vehicle you can search the whole "passenger compartment." Belton v. NY. This extends much past "where he was sitting"; it is the WHOLE inside of the car.