[CheyennePilot]

Last night around midnight, my family was awakened by a knock at the door. The Roswell police were let in by my wife after they said they received a 911 call from our address. My dog charged into the livingroom in protect mode, but I was already out of bed and intercepted her before any contact was made. I then asked them: " Why are you here?" They said: " We are responding to a 911 call that was "noise" that was heard by the operator." I asked my son who was now in the room if he called 911. He said no. My wife asked if they could check what number the call came in on. They checked but could not come up with a number. I took the dog by the collar and put him in our bedroom. The male officer followed me and began questioning about guns and any others in house. He told me to go back to the livingroom while he secured the house, and I complied. All guns were secured in safes. He finally returned and both officers left with no comment.

Now could you call this a hiccup in the system and a honest mistake? It felt like a shake down. Kind of like law enforcement making their version of a social call. You would think the operator would have returned the call to confirm a problem before sending out officers. I definitely do not want this to happen again!

HappyLandings!

CheyennePilot.

[average_shooter]

Sorry, but they don't get in unless they have a valid search warrant. I've called the cops before, when they showed up I talked to them on the front step.

[Double Naught Spy]

Honest mistake? Yes.

Intention mistake? Yes. There is a phenomenon now called SWATting where callers are able to call 911, report a crime from where the number of the caller is, only an incorrect number comes up on the 911 end with the correct address for the incorrect number or it come up with an address and phone number that are not related.. In other words, the cops could have been there by mistake in that the system was fooled and they were at your place where no problem existed.

Some departments require that 911 hangups be investigated in person.

Tell your wife not to allow strangers in the house again, even if they are supposedly cops. Especially don't allow them in late at night.

So what aren't you telling us? You missed telling us how the officers came to be dispatched to your address. Surely you asked. What was the basis of the 911 operator coming up with your address?

[KelVarnson]

It happened to me, 4 or 5 years ago. During a rainstorm, the telephone drop line from the pole to my house got noisy. Even though virtually all phones are touch-tone, the system still works on the old "click" method (for lack of the proper term). If you don't believe me, try dialing one of your friends (or your own number) by clicking the hook button the appropriate number of times for each digit.

So, 9 clicks followed by one click followed by one click equals a 911 hangup call, and the PD's caller ID will tell them right where your house is. The cops that responded to mine at 4 in the morning told me that it happens every time it rains.

Why didn't they just call you back, instead of coming over? Maybe if they really suspected something fishy was going on, they wouldn't trust the person who answered the call back to tell them the truth. Overall, I think it is a pretty good policy, but I don't believe that it should give them entry into your house. In my case, I didn't invite the cops in, and they were OK with that.

[esq_stu]

the male officer followed me and began questioning about guns
What questions? "Are there guns in the house?" "Were any guns fired?"

Where I live handguns are registered and the Chief of police has a record of them. "Your department has records on that, officer."

Would I have the presence of mind to say that in the middle of the night? Probably not.

Considering what happened in New Orleans and seems to be happening in Boston, is it time to ratchet up the paranoia again?

[CheyennePilot]

We didn't get into a long dialog with the officers. We were in bed asleep at the time. We are not wired with a phone company. Our phone is connected with the local cable service, so how could the law enforcement operator confirm a address without returning the call? We didn't request that service from our phone service provider. It would be like a cell phone. They would need to contact you to get a location. The male officer saw one of my gun safes and asked if all guns were in the safe. I don't know why he thought he needed to ask that question.

HappyLanding!

CheyennePilot.

[CNYCacher]

Noisy phone lines calling 911 happened to my Sister and Brother-in-law.

Let me add to that, dialling a bunch of random numbers will call 911 automatically, I have been told.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Cheyenne,

I would have been highly suspicious and politely hostile. And no way would they be allowed in my house.

Selena

[Jeff White]

It was most likely trouble in the 911 system. It happens quite frequently, especially in areas where the phone lines are underground and it's been raining. There are all kinds of glitches that could have caused that to happen. I've responded to a 911 hangup and the phone at the residence wasn't working. The people living there didn't know their phone wasn't working until I knocked on the door and asked if everything was all right.

They checked their phone and found no dial tone, just noise on the line. These things happen. The police have better things to do then knock on people's doors and ask if someone called 911. A 911 hangup is not a call we like to respond to. They happen a lot and for every one that is a true emergency (domestic and one party ripped the phone out of the wall, someone trying to call 911 and passing out before the call was completed....) there are probably a hundred that were mis dials, kids playing with the phone, mechanical problems in either the phone line or the 911 system, or a glitch in the 911 software.

Even so, the police will respond every time someone calls 911 and there is no one on the line.

Jeff

[Creature]

The male officer followed me and began questioning about guns and any others in house. He told me to go back to the livingroom while he secured the house, and I complied.

That was your big mistake right there. I would have told him no to "securing the house". They did not have a search warrant. Sounds like a fishing trip to me. The police can conduct their business on my doorstep. I find it especially suspicious that they couldn't come up with a phone number. The 911 system is designed to locate an address based on a phone number.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Jeff,

there are probably a hundred that were mis dials, kids playing with the phone, mechanical problems in either the phone line or the 911 system, or a glitch in the 911 software.

To a degree that's a rather frightening thing, not only the waste in time, money and manpower but the prospect that a true emergency might have to wait for a bogus call.

Selena

[Gtac]

Some years back, I hastily dialed 911, thought better of it, and hung up. (Long story).

Of course, a State Trooper showed up at my door a little while later.

I went out and met him on the front porch, locking my door behind me. I was very polite and straightforward with him, and explained the reason for the hang up call, reassuring him that everything was all right.

He asked, "Are there any guns in the house?"

I answered, "No, of course not."

I think of that every time I read that it is a criminal offense to lie to a police officer.

Another time, I had occasion to call an ambulance for my wife. Soon my living room was a-swarm with EMTs and State Troopers.

One of the Troopers wandered into the kitchen, and seeing several bottles of my wife's prescription medicines on the counter, became excited. "Hey, look at all these DRUGS!" he exclaimed.

I think he thought he was about to make Corporal.

I don't recall what I said. I just REACTED as if he was a little child and scooted him out of there. Whatever I said, he was embarrassed, as well he should have been.

I have a lot of respect for LEOs in general, but we have a civic duty to not let them get too big for their britches.

Don't let them in your house without a warrant.

If they ask, "Mind if I have a look (in you car/house/etc) for my own safety?"
Just say "No".

[CNYCacher]

If they ask, "Mind if I have a look (in you car/house/etc) for my own safety?"
Just say "No".

"No you don't mind? Great!"

[Jeff White]

CheyennePilot said;
Our phone is connected with the local cable service, so how could the law enforcement operator confirm a address without returning the call?

Unless your cable company is totally incompatible with the 911 software (most of them are, to my knowledge only the internet phone companies like Vonage give the system fits) the address came up on the screen like any other number would. We have 3 phone companies and a couple of cable systems that provide phone service in our county and all of them work with the 911 system.

We didn't request that service from our phone service provider.

I would bet that your provider is required by law to provide that service. I'd also bet that if you look at your bill closely, you are are paying a tax to pay for the service.

It would be like a cell phone. They would need to contact you to get a location.

If they have the newer software they can locate a cell phone without calling back. It has been illegal for several years for a cell phone provider to activate a phone that doesn't have GPS capability. Even if you have it turned off on your cell phone, it will activate when 911 is dialed.

The male officer saw one of my gun safes and asked if all guns were in the safe. I don't know why he thought he needed to ask that question.

Because, and I know you'll be shocked to hear this, sometimes people get involved in a domestic dispute, one party or the other calls 911 and the other party terminates the call, rips the phone cord from the wall, pushes the disconnect button on the phone, takes the handset from the caller and hangs up...... Then when the police arrive, the abused party goes along with what the abuser says because the abuser is afraid that he/she will be abused worse if they don't, abused party is afraid that if the abuser is arrested he/she won't be able to survive without the abusers income, the abused party has calmed down and isn't mad at the abuser anymore......If your attitude was agitated like it seems to be here when you talked with the officers, they probably checked further then they normally would have, not as punishment to you for having an attitude, but to make sure that your attitude wasn't left over from a domestic dispute. The last thing they wanted to do was respond to a 911 hangup and leave telling dispatch everything was all right, and then investigate a murder or aggravated battery at the same address a couple hours later.

Officers'Wife said;

To a degree that's a rather frightening thing, not only the waste in time, money and manpower but the prospect that a true emergency might have to wait for a bogus call.

It is a tremendous waste, but what are the authorities to do? If it truly was an emergency and no one responded, the public, who pays for the 911 service through taxes on their phone bill, would rightfully be in an uproar. So you respond to every 911 hangup.

Jeff

[sacp81170a]

Quote:
If they ask, "Mind if I have a look (in you car/house/etc) for my own safety?"
Just say "No".

"No you don't mind? Great!"

That's why we ask it that way...

[Crimp]

Did you recognize the police officer? Do you have his badge number or name? I'd be checking with the Roswell PD to make sure he's really on the payroll before you become this guy's payroll!

[bsf]

Happened to me this summer. I believe it was related to a problem w/ equipment on the service provider’s side. I was working in the driveway when squad car pulled up. Officer walked up the driveway and asked me a few questions.

Do you live here?
Did you call 911 and hang up?
Anyone else live here?
Bla bla.

He seemed disbelieving when I told him I did not call 911, and answered in the negative when I asked if the 911 system sometimes falsely indicated calls. He asked for ID. I asked him to stay put and I retrieved it for him. He took my information and I wrote down his last name, squad car #, and time/date. End of encounter.

[Slugless]

Looks like we have some LEOs responding to this post....

Officers, what do you want us to do in a 911 visit? Say you go to a house for a 911 call and nothing seems amiss at first:

-What do you do if we don't open the door?
-What do you do if we ask for a warrant?
-How should we confirm your identity as an LEO?
-What do you do if we tell you don't look around the house?
-What if we tell you don't look at my prescription drugs?
-What will you do if we say we have an unsecured gun, either on the nightstand cocked and locked or we tell you about a pistol in a drawer with a trigger lock?
-Do you take the firearms? Hold it until you determine nothing's wrong & return it? Take for a longer period?

What's your best advice on how a citizen should behave while interacting with an LEO during a stressful situation? I'm always polite, use the proper term of address ("Officer", not "sir" or "ma'am"), keep my hands in plain sight, etc.

[RoadkingLarry]

Jeff White Posted: ....It has been illegal for several years for a cell phone provider to activate a phone that doesn't have GPS capability....

Source reference or link please. I work in the industry and I don't believe that is the case but I am willing to be educated.

Caller ID can be manipulated with the right equipment/service. I've worked on PBX systems where you can program exactly what goers out over caller ID.

911/E911 is a darn fine system but it is not flawless, perfect or universal. You need to know what level of 911 service is working in your area and know what info will need to be provided to the operator. Knowing where you are is usually a pretty good thing to know.

[Gtac]

Quote:
If they ask, "Mind if I have a look (in you car/house/etc) for my own safety?"
Just say "No".

"No you don't mind? Great!"

Point taken. Amend that to, "Yes, I do mind."

I'm not recommending anyone get cocky, or clever, or confrontational.

I really do understand Jeff's points about the cop's perspective. The few times I've had dealings with the police, I've always made it a point to be polite, respectful of their point of view, etc. Mainly, I want to reassure them and help them to relax.

And you know something? It really works. Staying on the High Road is the way to go.

But "the price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance," and we have a duty to help them stay on the High Road, too.

[yesit'sloaded]

The male officer followed me and began questioning about guns and any others in house. He told me to go back to the living room while he secured the house, and I complied. Doesn't seem quite right to me. I probably would have done it like this.
"Did you call 911"
"no"
"Did anyone in the house call 911"
"no"
"Do you have any guns"
"What does that have to do with calling 911?"
"May we look around"
"Get a warrant or remove yourselves form my property"
We talk about the 2nd A all the time but we forget some others, like the 4th.
"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."

[IonicDOG]

Had an incident also, about a month after I moved into the a house in the city, I was sitting on my computer, in the living room at about 9:00PM. I heard 2 car doors slam, which was odd, several seconds later there were loud knocks at the front door. I got up with my beretta in hand and shouted who was there. They identified themselves at as LEO's, pulled back the curtain and saw them, put the gun on the sofa and cracked the door open. Come to find out they were at the wrong address and upon that they went about their buisiness.

[Avenger]

Another possibility is that somebody "Pants" called 911 as they drove by your house. Your address would show up as the origin, IF the area is Enhanced-911 enabled. If they ended the call quickly enough, it wouldn't have updated the origin to another set of co-ordinates or address. Unlikely, but it could happen. Lord only knows how many times my friends have told me they've gotten calls from me, only to hear the rustling of denim.

Do you have cats? They may have stepped on a speed dial button if you have a non-cordless phone around. I've heard tapes of those.....

"Hello, 911, what's your emergency?"
"MEOW?"
"What?"
"MEEOOOOOWW!"
*CLUNK* "GRRRRrrrrr" #HISS#
"Officers responding, use extreme caution entering the residence, their tabby is annoyed."

[Gtac]

I'd really like to see some LEO's tackle some of the questions posed by Slugless in post #18 above.

I was very interested to read sacp81170a's comment in post #15.

[Jeff White]

RoadkingLarry asked;
Source reference or link please. I work in the industry and I don't believe that is the case but I am willing to be educated.

When my daughter in law (works for Verizon) I'll ask her, she was the one who told me when I asked about getting an older phone I had activated.

Slugless asked;
Officers, what do you want us to do in a 911 visit?

Cooperate, open the door, answer a couple questions and it's over. The officers don't like waking people up in the middle of the night any more then the people like being awakened. Remember this call, even though 9 times out of 10 it's nothing, is an unknown trouble call to the officers. Their guard will be up and they will be trying to detect signs that something is wrong.

-What do you do if we don't open the door?

Depends entirely on the circumstances. If the 911 operator has said it sounded like static on the line, probably log it no contact and leave. If the 911 operator said, "I heard shouting in the background and them the line went dead, not opening the door is probably not an option. Backup will be called, the officers will probably walk around the house looking in windows and listening, trying to determine what was going on. If they saw someone laying on the floor, EMS may be called and entry might be made. It just depends on what the situation is.

-What do you do if we ask for a warrant?

Explain to you that one might not be necessary because the Supreme Court has ruled that under exigent circumstances we can enter residence and that an emergency call was placed from this residence which may establish that there are exigent circumstances permitting them to enter without a warrant. that totally depends on exactly what the 911 operator heard and what the officers found on arrival. You're standing in the door and the house is in disarray, furniture turned over, phone ripped from the wall....the officers are probably going to want to enter or at very least speak privately to everyone in the house.

-How should we confirm your identity as an LEO?

I suppose that somewhere a plainclothes officer responded to a 911 hangup call. Usually the presence of a marked squad car and uniformed officers is enough of a clue for most people, but all you have to do is call the agency, they will verify it.

-What do you do if we tell you don't look around the house?

Again it depends totally on the circumstances. If the 911 operator heard sounds of a struggle, the officers heard a fight going on as they approached the house, they discovered signs of a fight when they looked in the window and the door was opened and you refused to produce the other residents of the house so their safety could be confirmed, they are probably going to secure you and look anyway. If everything looks normal and it sounded to the 911 operator like trouble on the line, the officer probably isn't going to ask to look around if everyone in the house will verify they are ok.

-What if we tell you don't look at my prescription drugs?

Why would they want to look at your prescription drugs? In 22 years responding to countless 911 calls, the only time I can remember an officer looking through prescription drugs was when there was a medical emergency and that information was needed by EMS or the ER.

-What will you do if we say we have an unsecured gun, either on the nightstand cocked and locked or we tell you about a pistol in a drawer with a trigger lock?

Depends on the circumstances.

-Do you take the firearms? Hold it until you determine nothing's wrong & return it? Take for a longer period?

Again it's totally dependent on the circumstances.

What's your best advice on how a citizen should behave while interacting with an LEO during a stressful situation? I'm always polite, use the proper term of address ("Officer", not "sir" or "ma'am"), keep my hands in plain sight, etc.

yesit'sloaded said;

"May we look around"
"Get a warrant or remove yourselves form my property"
We talk about the 2nd A all the time but we forget some others, like the 4th.
"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."

If the right circumstances exist, you're likely to be sitting in the back of a squad car in handcuffs charged with obstruction. Maybe you can get your attorney to explain exigent circumstances to you so you can add it to your understanding of the 4th amendment.

Jeff

[Lonestar49]

...

Noisy 911 call, no call made from the house, ~ Roswell, New Mexico ~

Sounds like a low flying UFO made a low-ball pass over your house.. lol

Glad all was ok, and as mentioned about opening your door to the LEO's late at night, be careful in the grey-areas..


Ls

[Firethorn]

If they have the newer software they can locate a cell phone without calling back. It has been illegal for several years for a cell phone provider to activate a phone that doesn't have GPS capability. Even if you have it turned off on your cell phone, it will activate when 911 is dialed.

Actually, it's a requirement for them to be able to locate the phone; not that the system be GPS; or even that accurate.

Most phones still don't have GPS. Locating them is done by triangulation and signal strengths.

[Officers'Wife]

Interesting,

Explain to you that one might not be necessary because the Supreme Court has ruled that under exigent circumstances we can enter residence and that an emergency call was placed from this residence which may establish that there are exigent circumstances permitting them to enter without a warrant. that totally depends on exactly what the 911 operator heard and what the officers found on arrival.

So in essence, a prank caller pulled into your telephone box and a 'co-operative' 911 operator can effectively negate your fourth amendment rights.

I mean, these are police officers, professionals that have your best interests a heart and that pesky old Constitution just makes their job harder.

Selena

[Bazooka Joe71]

I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I was thinking about this the other day and this thread seems like a good time to ask:

My front door has a small window about 5 1/2-6' up the door, plenty low enough for at least a male police officer to see in. I have never had the police come to my house, but what if this happened and I, like many others would answer the door with one of my pistols in hand and they saw it?

I guess my question is has anyone done this before and what was the cops reaction?

Or, if you are a PO what would your reaction be?

[CheyennePilot]

I did not recognize the people as Roswell PD. They did not identify themselves to my wife, who had first contact, or me, as Roswell PD.

We use Vonage for a Phone service. That maybe part of the problem if we in fact dialed 911. WE Did Not!!! Jeff I tried not to look upset about the intrusion. I hate being a Second class Citizen. Dialing 911 is never my first option. I'm sure I speak for many others that had their rights impinged.
I do understand the LEO's job. I have worked security for many years so I have been on both sides of the fence. I did learn something though. When I heard the knock at the door, my first action was not going for the weapon, which was close at hand. They however, did not know that. I was ready in case they were not what they protrayed to be.
All in all it has been an eye opening experience. I do appreaciate the insite that has come forth.

HappyLandings!

CheyennePilot.

[Deanimator]

I'm not recommending anyone get cocky, or clever, or confrontational.

I really do understand Jeff's points about the cop's perspective. The few times I've had dealings with the police, I've always made it a point to be polite, respectful of their point of view, etc. Mainly, I want to reassure them and help them to relax.
I have the canned response, "You don't have my permission to do ANYTHING."

That removes any double-negatives or ambiguities. They may force their way in and do what they want anyway, but it starts the litigational version of "Hellraiser" rolling if necessary. Once opened, the puzzle box can't be closed again until my lawyer has flayed someone alive.

I'm from Chicago where there has recently been a home invasion/burglary/kidnapping ring operating within the Chicago PD, and apparently with the knowledge of higher-ups and their version of internal affairs. The Federal Prosecutor who handled the Scooter Libby case is investigating.

I don't trust the police to respect my rights by default. Recent [and not so recent] events prove I can't afford to.

[Jeff White]

Officers'Wife said;
So in essence, a prank caller pulled into your telephone box and a 'co-operative' 911 operator can effectively negate your fourth amendment rights.

No that isn't what I said. If you would read the entire sentence you quoted you would find that it says: and what the officers found on arrival.

It is the totality of the circumstances involved. Something that is pretty easy to understand, but doesn't lend itself to pithy anti-police statements like:

I mean, these are police officers, professionals that have your best interests a heart and that pesky old Constitution just makes their job harder.

Can you point out an instance of prankers driving around a neighborhood with a land line phone and opening people's phone boxes on the side of their house and making false 911 calls? Has it happened anywhere or is it something you just made up?

It's exigent circumstances that allow the police and EMS to enter the home of an elderly resident who has fallen and broken their hip and doesn't complete the 911 call. It's exigent circumstances that lead to the domestic battery arrest where the batterer has ripped the phone from the wall while the victim was calling 911, and the batterer has stood on the porch refusing entry and not producing the victim who made the call to verify he/she is all right. Perhaps you'd rather warrants were applied for in those cases?

Exigent circumstances was explained in the same post you cut and pasted the sentence you took to cop bash with. Explains a whole lot about what's wrong with our society, people are unwilling to face reality when it conflicts their personal worldview.

Jeff

[Coronach]

So in essence, a prank caller pulled into your telephone box and a 'co-operative' 911 operator can effectively negate your fourth amendment rights.Except for the fact that the 911 call is recorded and when it turns out that such and such wasn't so, someone will find themselves in court being sued. When you get right down to it, anyone can make up anything and justify their actions. The trouble comes when their testimony is at odds with reality.

Exigent circumstances are really common sense exceptions to the warrant requirement, predicated on the Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"Help me! He's beating me with a baseball bat!"

"Sorry. We don't have a warrant. But we'll be back in two hours when we have one."

-or-

"Sir, I know you're bleeding to death and cannot talk because you're unconscious, but you're inside of your house. We have to get a warrant."

How reasonable would proceeding inside to render assistance be? Pretty darned reasonable, in most people's opinion. 911 calls are, essentially, calls summoning the police and requesting assistance.

Now, every officer out there knows that not all 911 calls are emergencies. Heck, most aren't. Kids play on the phone, people dial 911 instead of 411, people call 911 then think better of it (sometimes in situations where there is a crime or disturbance, often in situations where there's no crime, just an argument), phone lines fail, phone systems get numbers mixed up, dispatchers send officers to wrong addresses, officers get houses mixed up. All of this happens, and all of these errors/glitches/whatever far outnumber actual emergencies. We're still required to respond. And when we get there, we are confronted with one of two scenarios (broadly speaking):

1. Bob has just been roused from a sound sleep by a knock on his door. Unbeknownst to him, his Verizon phone system is operated by poo-flinging monkeys (sorry, Jeff), and it has generated a 911 call to his residence. He goes down and finds the cops on his front porch. He opens the door. "yes? Can I help you?" "We got a 911 call from this residence. Is everything OK?" "What? Uh. Yes. Everything's fine. No one called 911 from here."

2. Bob has just finished killing his wife, and has just dragged the body to the basement to chop her up and dispose of the parts. Unbeknownst to him, that cheating little trollop managed to get to the phone and hit 9 1 1 before the hatchet struck the base of her neck, putting an end to her extramarital affairs once and for all. He is summoned from the butchering by a knock on his door. He goes up and finds the police on his porch. He opens the door. "yes? Can I help you?" "We got a 911 call from this residence. Is everything OK?" "What? Uh. Yes. Everything's fine. No one called 911 from here."

Notice that the response is the same in both of these instances? What? 911? We didn't call 911! This is why the officers can and should do what they can to investigate a weeeeebit further. Do you have to let them in? that kinda depends. Are you standing there in your PJs, looking for all the world like you just rolled out of bed? Or are you standing there in your bloodsoaked PJ's, looking for all the world like you're trying to inexpertly disassemble your first deer in the basement at 0430 hrs? Does your house look like a fight occurred? Are you denying there is anyone else home when the officers can plainly hear a woman crying in the background?

If you deny the officers entry, which is your Constitutional right, the officers will be forced to fall back on what they know and can see. Does it look like a crime has been committed? Does it look like someone is in need of assistance? If he answers are no, then it's "OK, sorry to wake you, have a good night." If the answers are yes, then they will force entry and make sure that no one is dead/dying/assaulted/etc.

Mike

[41magsnub]

Quote:
Source reference or link please. I work in the industry and I don't believe that is the case but I am willing to be educated.
When my daughter in law (works for Verizon) I'll ask her, she was the one who told me when I asked about getting an older phone I had activated.

Might want to check on that before repeating it again. I just last week activated an old ultra-low end phone through Verizon that does not have any GPS functionality or capability.

[Officers'Wife]

Exigent circumstances are really common sense exceptions to the warrant requirement, predicated on the Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Of course, and an emergency call to a system with a history of false calls would of course qualify. The fourth is simple left over eighteenth century garbage anyway.

Scenerio: Election year DA needs a high profile case desparately. Low level felon plays 'let's make a deal' plugs into the outside telephole tap and let's out a low but painful scream.

No no, would never happen. All police are honest and would never break the rules and DA's are only interested in the truth. I saw it on TV.

Selena

[KelVarnson]

A side note here...

Take the time to call or visit your local PD to make sure that all of your information is correct in their database, e.g. that your land line number matches your address, and that they have your cell number in case there is an emergency at your house while you are away.

Making sure this is all correct might also keep them from inadvertently sending officers to your house when your neighbor or someone else calls 911. The system is only as good as the information programmed into it.

[cassandrasdaddy]

"Has it happened anywhere or is it something you just made up? "


"No no, would never happen. All police are honest and would never break the rules and DA's are only interested in the truth. I saw it on TV"


was that a no? or a windy avoidance

[Officers'Wife]

cassandrasdaddy,

OK, histronics aside. For 14 months I was a foster child of Chicago's DCFS. I learned from hard experience that the state is not only a very bad parent but not to be trusted at all. The brilliance of our Constitution are the built in checks and balances to the powers of the three houses of government. Anytime any one of those checks are easily bypassed is a source of great suspicion for me. When the poster claimed that exigent circumstance was based on 'common sense' the warning bells went off like sixty acres of Big Ben.

We are supposed to be a nation of laws not of men. Placing a Constitutional guarentee in the hands of any group of men's 'common sense', especially a group working for a political office such as the Distric Attorney is a direct affront to the nation of laws.

Any system capable of being abused will be abused. The executive branch is no exception, making police officers 'more equal' in the equality of law should be a matter of great concern.

Selena

[cassandrasdaddy]

so a no?

[Officers'Wife]

Cassndrasdaddy

so a no?

Not to my knowledge. Are you prepared to tell me that in all of the United States there are no prosecutors capable of such an act?

Selena

[Slugless]

Jeff,

Thanks for answering the questions I posed. There were a lot of them and I know that took some time and thought.

Some of the questions I threw in because of other poster's descriptions of what they did or plan to do.

Usually the presence of a marked squad car and uniformed officers is enough of a clue for most people

+1

Your answers were pretty much as expected, thank you for your time.

[benEzra]

Except for the fact that the 911 call is recorded and when it turns out that such and such wasn't so, someone will find themselves in court being sued. When you get right down to it, anyone can make up anything and justify their actions. The trouble comes when their testimony is at odds with reality.
Unless you consented to a search, right? If you did consent, you would then have no defense.

Can you point out an instance of prankers driving around a neighborhood with a land line phone and opening people's phone boxes on the side of their house and making false 911 calls? Has it happened anywhere or is it something you just made up?
AFAIK, they don't need to physically tap into your phone box, if they can spoof the system.

http://www.ocregister.com/news/home-emami-county-1894171-ellis-system

Man accused of hacking into 911

Washington man accused of faking emergency call that sent armed response to unsuspecting Lake Forest family's home.
By SALVADOR HERNANDEZ
The Orange County Register
Comments 30 | Recommend 45

LAKE FOREST – SWAT officers expected to find a victim shot to death, drugs and a belligerent armed suspect when they surrounded the home of an unsuspecting couple, but found they were only a part of a false emergency call caused by a teenager who hacked into the county’s emergency response system, authorities said.

As officers swarmed the home with assault rifles, dogs and a helicopter, a Lake Forest couple and their two toddlers inside their home slept unsuspectingly.

On March 29 at 11:30 p.m., authorities allege, Randall Ellis, a 19-year-old from Mukilteo, Wash., hacked into the county’s 911 system from his home and placed a false emergency call, prompting a fully armed response to the home of an unsuspecting couple that could have ended tragically.

Thinking that a prowler was roaming his back yard, a resident of the home, identified only as Doug B. in the district attorney’s complaint filed in court, walked outside with a kitchen knife as SWAT officers from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department waited with assault rifles.

“It was just a horrifying experience,” said Doug B., who requested not to be identified further. “You think you feel safe in your own home. We had no idea what was going on.”

Doug B. and his wife did not feel safe in their home for weeks after the incident and wondered why their home was the one selected.

Doug B. was not able to go back to sleep for hours that night, and he rigged the doors and windows before he was able to go to bed.

“I thought someone was in my back yard, and they were going to get my family,” he said. “It was terrifying for months afterward.”

Officers apprehended and cuffed the resident and his wife, identified as Stacy B. It was moments later they learned the call was false, said Lt. Mike McHenry of the South County Investigations Bureau.

“The danger is significant,” said Lt. Don Barnes, chief of police services for Lake Forest. “That (situation) played out OK, although it scared the victims significantly.”

Ellis is expected to appear in an Orange County courtroom Monday to face charges of computer access and fraud, false imprisonment by violence, falsely reporting a crime and assault with an assault weapon by proxy.

“It’s not a prank,” Emami said. “People’s lives were in danger.”

Farrah Emami, spokeswoman for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, said
Ellis selected the couple’s name and address at random and electronically transferred false information into the 911 system.

Authorities believe this is not the only time that Ellis has done this. As part of their investigation, authorities believe Ellis created similar false SWAT responses in Bullhead, Ariz.; Millcreek Township, Pa.; and in his hometown of Mukilteo, Wash.

False 911 calls are placed all the time, McHenry said, but he said this is the first time someone has hacked into Orange County’s system and created a false call in this way.

“We’ve seen nothing like this,” McHenry said. “This was unique. This was pretty serious.”

Other law enforcement agencies have seen similar breaches into their 911 systems as part of a trend picked up by computer hackers in the nation called “SWATting”, Barnes said.

The purpose is to create a false 911 call that appears to be coming from the residence in question and prompt a SWAT response from local law enforcement agencies, Barnes said.

Authorities would not divulge details on how Ellis hacked into the system, stating that doing so would jeopardize the investigation and possibly create copycats. But the call that prompted a full response to the Lake Forest home started as a call to the Orange County Fire Authority as a drug overdose and progressed into a possible murder, McHenry said.

A supposed teenager stated someone had overdosed on cocaine. The teenager then stated he had been shot in the shoulder and that attackers were going to go shoot and kill his sister, he said.

Canines, a helicopter and SWAT officers responded to the false call.

“It was a pretty large response,” McHenry said.

Through electronic forensics, investigators were able to link Ellis to the false call, Emami said.

Ellis does not appear to have a criminal record, Emami said, but it looks like he’s done this before. He was taken into custody by authorities in Mukilteo on Friday. He waived extradition Monday in court and is expected to appear in Orange County Superior Court on Oct. 22 for an arraignment hearing.

Now Doug B. said he is hoping that the upcoming court proceedings can shed some light into why this happened and why his family was targeted.

“My family is my life and to feel like its being threatened is horrifying,” he said.

[ralphie98]

41MAGSNUB
I think there is confusion between E911 capable devices and GPS. The FCC does require that all newly activated wireless devices be E911 capable. You may not be able to map your driving route on your phone, but 911 will be able to locate you if needed.

http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/911/enhanced911/Welcome.html

[Jeff White]

Officers'Wife said;
Of course, and an emergency call to a system with a history of false calls would of course qualify.

What part of The call itself would not likely qualify, unless the 911 operator heard an obvious crime in progress is so hard to understand?

The fourth is simple left over eighteenth century garbage anyway.

Of course it is, that's why we spend so much in service training time dealing with it...........

Scenerio: Election year DA needs a high profile case desparately. Low level felon plays 'let's make a deal' plugs into the outside telephole tap and let's out a low but painful scream.

Scenario continued: Preliminary hearing 3 days later - Defense Attorney:

Your honor I move to have the evidence that was seized from my client's excluded from these proceedings. I have reviewed the police reports and the officers violated my client's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th amendment to the Constitution. The officer's report stated that upon receiving a report of a 911 call, where the caller made a low, painful sounding scream, he drove to the residence that showed up on the 911 operators screen. This residence was the home of my client. Upon arrival the officer found the house was dark, there were no broken down doors or broken out windows or any other sign of forced entry. The officer rang the doorbell and knocked loudly on the door in an attempt to make contact. My client answered the door in his pajamas, having obviously been awakened. My client told the officer that everyone in the house had been asleep and no one called 911 and everything was fine. The officer asked who else lived in the house and my client stated his wife and 12 year old child. The officer asked to speak to everyone in the house to check on their welfare and my client complied. The officer, still not convinced, then pushed his way past my client and entered the house. While checking for the person who made the 911 call, the officer discovered the 14 AK47 select fire assault rifles, 20,000 rounds of ammunition, 40 kilos of cocaine, a methamphetamine production laboratory, and 96 slick papered magazines that were child pornography. The officer then placed my client under arrest on several charges.

Your honor, regardless of the seriousness of the charges against him, my client should be freed because the officer had no legal right to enter the residence. My client complied with all of the officer's demands, and there was no probable cause that would lead a reasonable man to believe that exigent circumstances existed that would have allowed a warrant less search of my clients home.

Judge: Your motion is sustained. The evidence against your client was seized illegally and not admissible.

Defense Attorney: Your honor, since there is no other evidence that my client has committed any crime, I ask that the charges be dismissed with prejudice and that he be freed immediately and his bond returned.

Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, do you have any other evidence against Mr _____?

Prosecutor: No your honor, not at this time.

Judge: I grant the motion to dismiss the charges, but without prejudice. Mr Prosecutor, if you can legally produce evidence that Mr. _______ is guilty of these charges, you are free to refile them.

Two days later

Mr. ________ files 1983 action in federal court charging the officer, the police department and the prosecutor with violating his 4th amendment rights under the color of law.

The next day

Local newspaper gets a hold of the federal 1983 lawsuit. Headline reads: LOCAL PROSECUTOR SUED IN FEDERAL COURT FOR CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Officer's Wife said;
We are supposed to be a nation of laws not of men. Placing a Constitutional guarentee in the hands of any group of men's 'common sense', especially a group working for a political office such as the Distric Attorney is a direct affront to the nation of laws.

Would you place it in the hands of apes, or I know how about horses...that's it, horses understand the Constitution...:rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but until the aliens land and give us all the wisdom of the universe, we have no chance but to put our constitutional guarantees into the hands of men.

We have a court system that suppresses illegally obtained evidence every day that court is in session.

Any system capable of being abused will be abused. The executive branch is no exception, making police officers 'more equal' in the equality of law should be a matter of great concern.

How is the exigent circumstances rule making police officers more equal? The courts with the exclusionary rule are the check on the police.

[RPCVYemen]

Cooperate, open the door, answer a couple questions and it's over.

And maybe thank them for doing a difficult dangerous job. :)

Walking up to a dark house in the middle of the night when someone inside maybe engaged in a crime and ready to shoot you cannot be a lot of fun.

I don't get the attitude some folks have towards police - the contact I have had has mostly been decent guys doing a hard job. Some have been more friendly than others - but the truth is that they aren't really there to be my best friend.

If they came to my house in the middle of the night, I don't see any reason to get an attitude. If they got a 911 call from my house - even do to a software bug - I'd just as soon they came out. If they got a hangup call from your house, would you rather they not come?

I can also fully understand that if they are called to an address where guns are present, they want to be pretty sure that those weapons are under their control/not accessible while they are there.

Do the police make mistakes? I began to understand a long time ago that everyone makes mistakes - not all the time - but most of us make a mistake now and then. So I don't expect the police to never make a mistake.

So I got to tell you that even though I support the Bill of Rights, playing chest pounding dominance games when there is a simple mistake or misunderstanding is just silly.

Mike

[TexasRifleman]

If you don't believe me, try dialing one of your friends (or your own number) by clicking the hook button the appropriate number of times for each digit.


That absolutely does not work any longer except in VERY old phone systems in the most rural areas. Even those old 1A style (still some analog) switches are being updated.

The click method has been dead for at least 10 years except in the absolute sticks.

Modern telephone switches (modern being actual switches not VoIP which is seriously modern but rare comparatively) of the DMS250 (Nortel) and 5E (Lucent) at one time supported analog switching dial but most of those services were removed years ago and in fact are no longer even manufactured.

Super modern phone systems like Vonage don't even have lines at all, merely an IP connection from a box in the customers house over the Internet to a VoIP switch at the service provider. Dial tone in that case is a sound file played in a loop by a box at the customers location. 9-1-1 services there are set up manually when the phone is installed, and it is not required that customers even fill out the 9-1-1 info as yet.

[TexasRifleman]

Jeff White Posted: ....It has been illegal for several years for a cell phone provider to activate a phone that doesn't have GPS capability....


Absolutely not true. Even the latest hot toy, the iPhone, does not have GPS capability.

The current method of finding a cell phone is by triagulation between multiple cell sites. You've heard of this technique on the news trying to locate cell phones by their "ping" (2 way handshake with the cell site radio).

GPS phones are still few and far between. Jeff White said his daughter in law worked for Verizon. Verizon in fact is the largest supplier and user of GPS enabled phones and it very well may be company policy there to not activate non GPS phones, but there is no regulation around that.

Voice services, infrastructure, and regulatory issues is what I do for a living.

[RPCVYemen]

we have no chance but to put our constitutional guarantees into the hands of men.

I emphasizes the fact that we have to chose to employ human beings as police, or not to have police.

The writers of the Constitution were adults, they knew that people made mistakes. None of the amendments can be construed to say that "Human beings shall not make mistakes." Jeff is right, the (adult) solution to illegal search and seizure is not to require human beings to be perfect. The solution is to return property or make reparations. If the evidence was seized improperly, it cannot be used in trial.

If someone really wants to experience a city with no police, I probably still have the keys to my house/compound in Mogadishu. For anyone that knows the city, it's close to the K-10 complex across the Airport road from the "new" American embassy. I left early in the breakdown, but it was already getting pretty hairy there.

I chose to live in a city with police. For all of many posters' bluster, a city without police ain't a heck of a lot of fun.

Mike

[cassandrasdaddy]

i think some folks make the mistake of believing all these folks have the tude in real life. its often not so. in fact the fact that so many folks are afraid when the cops show up account for the attitude. folks lash out at that they fear. particularly that they are not familiar with. cops don't bother me much, anymore. funny how some folks who've had genuine interactions that resulted in longterm consequences are less anti than those who live in the world of "it coulda happened that way"

[SalTx]

So leo's ain't there to be your friends? Then they ain't your friends. Exigent circumstances?..so it doesn't really matter then, what we think, feel, believe, know to be the truth? so long as YOU think what is best. I don't know why people try so hard to make heroes out of paid servants who easily dismiss people's rights in favor of their right to make money safely. How heroic of them. I say less pay and more scrutiny.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Rifleman,

Your courtroom scene is dead on. Save the arrest report would mention, the man to be 'panting from exertion', of suspicious demeanor, fill in the blank. True or not in a he said she said which would have the greater weight? Perjury? More likely 'reasonable deception."


However, should he win the first round the guy could starve to death paying his attorny before the civil rights case ever saw the first hearing much less made it through the appeals. The prosecutor and police, of course, having the presumption of innocence would be paying their legal fees from the vast resources of the state.

Would you place it in the hands of apes, or I know how about horses...that's it, horses understand the Constitution...

No, I would place squarely on the Constitution itself. Just as the Founders intended. A warrant signed by a judge after being presented with probable cause.

The other poster, I believe, mentioned hearing a scream in the background. How often an occurance is that? I know I read it in the papers every so often leading me to believe it's rare enough to be considered news.

How is the exigent circumstances rule making police officers more equal? The courts with the exclusionary rule are the check on the police.

Again, the citizen has the option to accept a bad search or bankrupt himself fighting the vast resources of the state in fighting it. If the citizen were to be unfortunate enough to get a judge like the one in Cass County Indiana years ago (I believe his name was Cox) who's judgments were based more on his benefit than the law he would be in trouble plenty.

Selena

[Slugless]

#50

If you don't pay cops well then they turn to bribery to make a living. I've been there, seen it, it's ugly and you don't want this country to go there.

My 86 year old mother-in-law's descriptions of the police "rackets" in old South Boston are jaw-dropping. In fact, the term "rackets" that she uses is the source of the word "racketeering." Why did they do this? Because they were so well paid?

Pay 'em well, train them well, give them good equipment. The more you pay, the better qualified people you get.

[cassandrasdaddy]

too true slugless
and we've engineered a situation in this country where we have foreign thugs with so lil fear and enough cash to take out 6figure contracts on governers and four stars. heck some years back four dc sargeants were nailed for collecting 5 k a week each to protect a numbers bank.

[Jeff White]

Officers wife said;
No, I would place squarely on the Constitution itself. Just as the Founders intended. A warrant signed by a judge after being presented with probable cause.

This is not consistent with this:

If the citizen were to be unfortunate enough to get a judge like the one in Cass County Indiana years ago (I believe his name was Cox) who's judgments were based more on his benefit than the law he would be in trouble plenty.

If you can't trust the judges, then your proposal to eliminate exigent circumstances would be futile. After all judges are human beings too.

Jeff

[nfl1990]

How heroic of them. I say less pay and more scrutiny.

I think you really need to spend some time in a modern PD, everything is done under scrutiny, even the simple act of running a plate has accountability.
As for pay you should look at what an officer in your town makes the amount will probably surprise you, people don't go into police work to get rich, they go in to help people, and yes I know some go in for the power but those tend to be few and far between.

[KelVarnson]

That absolutely does not work any longer except in VERY old phone systems in the most rural areas. Even those old 1A style (still some analog) switches are being updated.

The click method has been dead for at least 10 years except in the absolute sticks.

I stand corrected. I just tried it here, and it didn't work. BUT, I must be in the sticks, because I know I did this less than a year ago and it worked. I also know that at the time I got the false 911 visit, it was working that way, because I suspected that and verified it. And I found a cut in the drop line that was leaking the water in, and had the phone company fix it.

Thanks for the update.

GPS phones are still few and far between.

I have one, as do at least some of my friends who are on Verizon here. When I got the phone about a year ago, I think most of the models they showed me had embedded GPS. I am not sure if Verizon uses the GPS in order to meet the E911 requirement, or whether they use triangulation, or a combination. I do remember turning off the GPS function for general operation, but I was not allowed to turn it off for 911 calls (not that I would want to).

[cassandrasdaddy]

my kids firefly has the gps gonna track her butt till she figures it out then i'll get her chipped

[TexasRifleman]

I am not sure if Verizon uses the GPS in order to meet the E911 requirement, or whether they use triangulation, or a combination.

Verizon uses GPS as a corporate service differentiator to stand out in the market. They make a LOT of money charging for GPS services with their phones; navigation, business locator, etc.

[Deanimator]

I think you really need to spend some time in a modern PD, everything is done under scrutiny, even the simple act of running a plate has accountability.
If there's so much scrutiny, how come there was a home invasion gang operating inside the Chicago PD?

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Deanimator,

To be fair, you can't really use any part of the gov of the city of Chicago. Although I'm told it's starting to change a little for the better. As bad of caliber of Jasper county I still have enough respect for them not to put them in the same cat as Chicago.

OK Jeff,
If you can't trust the judges, then your proposal to eliminate exigent circumstances would be futile. After all judges are human beings too.

So naturally we give LEO's carte blanc? Both judicial and exec branch ought to have a true civilian reveiw board chosen like jury duty (vote registration or DL) making recommendations to a special prosecutor independant of both the exective and judial branch. Though how you would find an attorney that wouldn't be an officer of the court is beyond me.

Selena

[Jeff White]

I give up...we're in the same circular conversation that always happens here. I'll leave you all with the immortal words of Mick Jagger in 1968:

http://www.keno.org/stones_lyrics/sympathy_for_the_devil.htm
Just as every cop is a criminal (whoo whoo)
And all the sinners saints (whoo whoo)
As heads is tails (whoo whoo)
Just call me Lucifer (whoo whoo)
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint (whoo whoo)

Enjoy.............

Jeff

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Jeff White,

Thank you for your politeness and consideration.

Everybody knows the dice are loaded.
Everybody knows the game is fixed.

Selena

[Funderb]

police CANNOT come inside without a warrant. Never let them in.
(unless they present a warrant.)

[cassandrasdaddy]

i take it you didn't read the thread yet

[average_shooter]

This one seems pretty well done... We need that "beating a dead horse" emoticon...

[Slugless]

Like this?

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff161/slugless_bucket/other_beatingA_DeadHorse.gif

All I gotta say is thank the English for their common law.

[Crunker1337]

Yes, police CAN come inside without a search warrant, if they have probable cause.

[cassandrasdaddy]

shhhh don't muddy the waters with facts. i gotta go deal with a dimwit tomorrow who thinks the supreme courts gonna let him go cause they didn't read him his rights. mind you hes in jail and lost the only appeal he had but he has closed his eyes and thinks the video of him stealing doesn't count

[Bailey Guns]

The High Road. What a great concept. Until it's time to bash the cops again.

For those of you who think police officers CANNOT come inside your home without a warrant...you're really clueless. If the proper circumstances are in place they certainly can. Happens every day somewhere, despite all the blowhard bravado of some on THR.

[Pete409]

Before this thread gets locked, I'd like to ask a serious question.

One of the previous posters (presumably a LEO) replied something to the effect that if the homeowner didn't consent to let the cops in when the cops felt that there were "exigent circumstances", that the homeowner might just find himself handcuffed and in the back seat of the cruiser and facing charges of obstructing justice (or something to that effect).

Suppose the homeowner (or renter), when asked by the cops if they could search the house responded, "You do NOT have my permission to search the house, but I will not attempt to stop you if you insist on doing so."

How could the cops then arrest him for obstructing justice (or whatever the term was) for denying them permission to enter but making it perfectly clear that he wouldn't offer any resistance if they did so?

[average_shooter]

To the cops here let me say this; I think quite a bit of the "cop-bashing" is a result of mistrust. A situation where the few bad cops ruined things for the many good cops. It's sad, it sucks, but that's the way it is.

I'm sure there are lots of good cops out there. But personally I can't afford to go around trusting anyone based solely on the clothes they donned this morning or the union representing them. I happen to have had experience working pretty closely with a few of the cops in my town, considering at one point I was thinking of becoming an officer. Working with my local department killed my desire. I don't want to be like them. Knowing how screwed-up parts of my local department are I can't just trust a cop until I see a lot more public displays of cops policing themselves.

All too often I see references to cops having each others backs. Alright, I get it, you're like brothers. My best friend is the closest thing I have to a brother, he's like family. But truth be told, if he f's up, it's on him. I'm not going to stand up for a criminal. Too often I see articles about cover-ups and web-forums about cops going after other cops for writing other cops dui's and speeding tickets. That just ain't right.

I think it's high time that good people, whether they wear a badge or not, start weeding out the bad guys.

[zxcvbob]

police CANNOT come inside without a warrant. Never let them in.
(unless they present a warrant.)

There is a difference between giving consent for a search without a warrant, and being very vocal about the fact that you don't consent but still not physically resisting. I think that's the right approach most of the time.

There is a time for resisting (with up to deadly force if necessary), but I'm not sure where the line is drawn for that, but luckily the situation almost never comes anywhere close to that.

[Pete409]

Average Shooter,

I agree 100% with your comments. When ANY group won't strongly condem members of their own group who do wrong, then they shouldn't be surprised when the general public distrusts ALL members of that group.

[thexrayboy]

They did not have a search warrant. Sounds like a fishing trip to me. The police can conduct their business on my doorstep. I find it especially suspicious that they couldn't come up with a phone number. The 911 system is designed to locate an address based on a phone number.


Of course they were fishing. Duh. Responding to a "911 hangup" can be understood. Asking to wander about the house to "secure it"
is patently and obviously an excuse to "see what I can see".


If they ask, "Mind if I have a look (in you car/house/etc) for my own safety?"
Just say "No".

I suggest you be a little more specific in your replies... as in " No officer, I do mind if you have a look and therefore I refuse to give you permission."
A less specific answer will inevitably be "interpreted" and the officer will proceed as they choose.

[oldcop1971]

in this country, I daresay the majority of officers make less than the median income of the citizens of their state. In the 7 man dept i now work for, a new officer gets paid a whopping $8.50 an hour until he is academy certifed, and then gets the exorbitant sum of $10.00 an hour. That's around $22,000 a year. The town does NOT pay health insurance. Even tho the cost of living is relatively low, this is not enough to retire to a Caribbean island. Believe it or not, Constitutional Law is taught in the academy, and covered in depth in in-service training. Yes, we have the power to totally f**k up your life. The vast majority of us, however, do not get off on power trips. We try to do a mostly thankless job as fairly as humanly possible. Most of us do try to get the screwups and bad apples out of the profession. The 'blue wall of silence' exists in some areas/departments, but you also have officers out here who have the integrity and honor to do the right thing, just because it is right. Officer's wife, it sounds as tho you have had a horrible experiance with the .gov in the past. Please, however, do not judge us all for the sins of those whom I've never met nor associated with. I know that once you've been burned, you are reluctant to touch even a cold stove eye again. Believe me, I try to earn the citizen's respect and trust every day I work. I know that not only my reputation is on the line, but also every other officer in the country as well.
rambling rant over.

God Bless
oc71

[Reyn]

Before this thread gets locked, I'd like to ask a serious question.

One of the previous posters (presumably a LEO) replied something to the effect that if the homeowner didn't consent to let the cops in when the cops felt that there were "exigent circumstances", that the homeowner might just find himself handcuffed and in the back seat of the cruiser and facing charges of obstructing justice (or something to that effect).

Suppose the homeowner (or renter), when asked by the cops if they could search the house responded, "You do NOT have my permission to search the house, but I will not attempt to stop you if you insist on doing so."

How could the cops then arrest him for obstructing justice (or whatever the term was) for denying them permission to enter but making it perfectly clear that he wouldn't offer any resistance if they did so?

They couldnt legally. You are simply verbally disagreeing but not obstructing.

BTW, I had a 911 call one time to a vacant lot. The house had burned and was no longer there.

[opd743]

I have tried not to reply on this one, but I just have to give my side.

As far as 911 hangups, every department has a different policy on how to handle them. Our's is as follows: Dispatch receives a 911 hangup, they send a primary and a backup unit to the address that shows up on the screen or the general area to BOLO if the call was made from a cell phone, they then call the number the hangup came from, they then tell the units if contact was made or if there is static on the line or if they get an answering machine, if contact is made they inform the responding units that the person advised it was accidental or child playing on the phone or if the person sounded suspicious during the conversation or some other situation (fight, medical problem, etc.), at which point both units continue to the address to make contact with the occupants to check thier welfare. The units then report if there is a disturbance or if if was accidental, etc.

To answer the question of how do the LEO'S respond to these kind of calls, I can only tell you how I handle them.

When I arrive I shine every window or door on the front of the house where a threat could present itself. I then knock on the door and step off the porch or at least out of the line of sight of the door or any windows. When someone comes to the door, I state my name and department name and tell them that we have received a 911 hangup from thier address. If they say everything is fine I ask to see ALL adults in the house, after which if they also say everything is fine, I appoligize for disturbing them and I get in my car and leave. Unless I see obviouse signs of a disturbance or the person is hostile or evasive when I make contact. At which point I will investigate further, that could involve one-on-one interviews with every adult or even entering the home if I have PROBABLE CAUSE to do so.

For the people that just hate police and think we have no business any where near your home, here is a little senario for you to think on.

Let's say your sitting there posting away at your computer about how prepared you are to fight of any threat to you or your family. You have just ordered a pizza that should be here any minute, or you have a friend coming over to watch the game with you. You hear a knock at the door, and I know this would never REALLY happen to anyone as prepared as you, but you go to the door without your arsenal at the ready. As soon as you open the door three men in ski masks with guns over power you and tie you up. Your wife, hearing the comotion, opens the kitchen door, screams when she sees what is happening and runs to the phone. She manages to dial 911 before one of the robbers can grad her and hang up the phone. At which point she is also tied up. So know you are both sitting the tied up with duct tape over you mouth. When suddenly there is a knock at the door. The robbers take off there masks, two of them sit on the couch while the third answers the door. He talks to the officer, tells him everything is fine in the house, it had to be a mistake for him to have to come out here to waste his time. Ever though the man is noticably nervice and sweating when the house is cool, the officer leaves. Now you are screwed, I mean you saw there faces right? Do you like the way this is going to end or would you have rather had the officer investigate a little further?

Guys and gals, we as officers are not out here to infrindge on you rights or take everything you have away as many of you believe. We are after all, people too. We go with what we see and feel, much like the rest of the human race. If I come to you house on a call and you tell me I cannot come in when ther are signs that someone in the house is in need of help, I am going to do what I have to do AT THAT TIME and worry about civil lawsuites later. If I enter a home without a warrant to help a woman who was just beaten by her husband and I save her, I would welcome the lawsuite.

This is the most I have ever posted, my hands hurt, I am going to bed.

Hug a COP:)

[mr hanky]

I remember when I was a senior in high school I noticed that there was a card from a detective in the crack between my door and the wall. I didn't really think much of it until I received a call from this detective a few days later saying "Did you get my card? Why haven't you called?" In a fairly rude tone. I politely said I didn't receive a request to call anyone, there was just a random card placed that could have come from anywhere or anyone (I thought it was a joke when I initially saw the card myself).

I agreed to come down to the station. When I recognized the detective my 1st BS detector went off (see below). I proceeded to defend myself from a barage of questions that were basically accusing me of having thrown objects (water balloons) that caused several hundred dollars worth of damage (2nd BS detector went off) from my vehicle (that was not running, broken down in the garage, 3rd BS detector). I asked the officer what time and date this report came from and if they had my plate number. He told me the time and date and when he said he had my plate number I knew it was BS becuase my Jeep was totally out of commission weeks before that date and after as well, so how did the Det. get my plates?

My very old grouchy next door neighbor (about in his 60-70's) that my family has had multiple, ridiculous problems with, is good friends with not only the judge (who is in his 60-70's also) in our town but also with this detective (also 60-70's) (I've seen them together multiple occasions, including both of them looking at my jeep in the driveway when I was working on it).

After these questions I said I would produce witnesses that had helped me tow my jeep at the times in question as well as receipts for parts I had ordered previously to replace the broken parts on my Jeep. I told him there was NO WAY for him to get my lic plate number unless it was some other occasion (not mentioning that I had seen him with my neighbor). He tried to clammor on about my rebutals, trailed off and eventually shut up.

The det. was just so pompous, entitled and condescending toward me. If this guy knew that I was currently finishing my associate degree in high school, busy taking 27 credit hours at the local University ext, working on my Eagle Scout, playing sports, sang in choir, attended church, just knew me personally even a little bit instead of plotting against me with my idiotic neighbor, I would've been the last of his worries.

That was a very frustrating experience. Maybe it was all accident, maybe it wasn't but it still makes me suspicious sometimes. I have family in law enforcement and I have a lot of respect for LEO and military, they deal with stuff almost NO ONE wants to deal with, but all humans are falable sometimes.

[One of Many]

Sounds like the Constitution is no longer worth the material it was written on. The SC gives police the power to use "exigent circumstances" to invade and search a persons home without a warrant, with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, based solely on another police officers statement that they heard something (or did not hear something) on a telephone system that is known to be subject to equipment failures. A homeowner that resists being subjected to this interrogation and search is then arrested for 'obstructing' the performance of an officers 'legal' duties. You can't get much closer to a police state than this.

The same SC says that the police have no legal obligation to protect any individual from violent attack, but says the police can enter a persons home to prevent a possible 'domestic violence' situation; which is it - no individual protection, or forced entry into a home to prevent DV based on a faulty phone system? These two concepts are diametrically opposed; they are mutually exclusive.

[foghornl]

Here is another consideration, too....

Since the "internet phones" are becoming popular, also known as Voice Over I.P., there is the issue of Caller ID not being correct. It seems that it is very easy to 'spoof' ANY phone number with VOIP systems.

I had a call come in recently on my Caller ID that showed MY OWN phone number as the originating number...no way I called myself at home from home.

[ilbob]

a few years ago we had an IT guy who was trying to dial out on a modem. and unintentionally dialed 911 like 5 times. the local pd showed up eventually. i don't know why they didn't call first.

[ilbob]

Jeff White Posted: ....It has been illegal for several years for a cell phone provider to activate a phone that doesn't have GPS capability....
I think the real law is it either has to have GPS or some other locater capability. The other method that is used is to triangulate the signal from several towers, giving a location within maybe 50 meters IIRC.

[ilbob]

I don't get the attitude some folks have toward police - the contact I have had has mostly been decent guys doing a hard job. Some have been more friendly than others - but the truth is that they aren't really there to be my best friend.
They are never your friend when acting in an official capacity, but they are usually not your enemy. It may sound like semantic game, but that's the way it is.

It is up to you to learn to say NO when they ask something of you. Or you can just roll over and do anything they want. There really is no middle ground.

[ilbob]

Sounds like the Constitution is no longer worth the material it was written on. The SC gives police the power to use "exigent circumstances" to invade and search a persons home without a warrant, with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, based solely on another police officers statement that they heard something (or did not hear something) on a telephone system that is known to be subject to equipment failures. A homeowner that resists being subjected to this interrogation and search is then arrested for 'obstructing' the performance of an officers 'legal' duties. You can't get much closer to a police state than this.

The same SC says that the police have no legal obligation to protect any individual from violent attack, but says the police can enter a persons home to prevent a possible 'domestic violence' situation; which is it - no individual protection, or forced entry into a home to prevent DV based on a faulty phone system? These two concepts are diametrically opposed; they are mutually exclusive.

The real problem is that a there is no means by which these incidents can be reviewed by an independent entity and appropriate disciplinary action taken if warranted. At present, virtually all LE agencies investigate complaints against themselves. It is very difficult for any entity made up of human beings to investigate itself in a fair and open means. It may happen in some departments, but I do not believe that is the norm.

If there was some means by which police conduct was subject to some open and unbiased judgment, police conduct would probably improve. OTOH, most of the problems with LE misconduct exist in places like Chicago where the whole system is so corrupt that it is unlikely that any kind of fair system could even be instituted.

Consider yourself fortunate if you live in an area where police mostly behave themselves. Consider moving if you live in places like Chicago where the whole system is completely dysfunctional.

[RPCVYemen]

It is up to you to learn to say NO when they ask something of you. Or you can just roll over and do anything they want. There really is no middle ground.

Sorry, that's just wacky thinking in my book. Whenever someone says, "There really is no middle ground!", they are almost always hiding some irrationality under and absolutist position.

The key to understanding the fundamental lack of rational thought in this post is the phrase, "do anything they want."

I can chose to permit and object to certain kinds of searches when asked for permission w/o a warrant, and depending on circumstances. There are some things to which I would object without a warrant, and other things to which I would not object without a warrant. For example let's propose four different requests:


We've a 911 call from this house, reporting screaming and shouting. May we check all of the rooms in the house?
Someone shot up your neighbor's garage - may we have your pistol for ballistics testing?
Can you give us a list of all of the political donations you've made in the last 4 years?
A neighbor of yours reported seeing someone going in a window at the rear of your house. May we sweep the rooms?


I would personally grant permission for #1, #2, and #4. I would ask for a warrant for #3. #3 and #4 actually fit pretty closely (I think) the definition of exigent circumstance I found on wikipedia:

United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984): "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons,...

You may disagree with my list. That's your privilege - that's your choice. But the very fact that I can (and would) object to #3 demonstrates that my only two choices are not "to say NO when they ask something of you" or "roll over and allow them to do anything".

The reality is that if I deny permission and they search anyway, I will wait for my day in court. Attempting to win a battle with police forces "on the street" seems like a really poor strategy to me. I don't have the weapons/tactics to win, and especially at home, I have a wife and kids. I don't see myself engaging in a gun battle with with my wife and kids in the line of fire.

Mike

[pax]

opd743,

Excellent post.

***

A few years back, we had a certain red-headed five-year-old who was pure bottled trouble. He wasn't ... bad ... exactly. He just had a strong drive to know what would happen if ____.

My husband and I were in the living room, and the kids were playing upstairs, when the phone rang. It was the 911 operator, calling to check on us because they'd just had a hang up call from our house.

Five kids in the house, and husband and I looked at each other and knew instantly which kid was the culprit. :p

When deputy arrived, husband and I met him on the porch & explained situation. Said we'd rather not do this again, so if he could (pretty please) give the lecture to the kid we'd appreciate it. Deputy said, "How many kids you got here?"

"Umm, five."

"Bring 'em all down, I'd like to talk to all of them. Sometimes this is contagious." (Heh, and a good way of checking that everyone is okay, I suspect.)

Out troop the kids. Deputy spots Middle Son, the redhead. "You're the one who called, aren't you?" Kid hangs head. Deputy gives pretty good talking-to, then invites kids to check out patrol car.

Two weeks later, same kid did same thing again, no husband around this time. Well, #%^&%!! (He must take after husband's side; I'm sure I was never that ornery.)

Asked why he did that, his response was, "I liked the guy who came out and wanted to talk to him again."

So much for the Officer Friendly model. :banghead:

pax

The fact that boys are allowed to exist at all is evidence of a remarkable Christian forbearance among men. -- Ambrose Bierce

[ilbob]

The reality is that if I deny permission and they search anyway, I will wait for my day in court. Attempting to win a battle with police forces "on the street" seems like a really poor strategy to me. I don't have the weapons/tactics to win, and especially at home, I have a wife and kids. I don't see myself engaging in a gun battle with with my wife and kids in the line of fire.
You won't win in court either.

[TexasRifleman]

I think the real law is it either has to have GPS or some other locater capability. The other method that is used is to triangulate the signal from several towers, giving a location within maybe 50 meters IIRC.


For network-based E-911 solutions (Triangulation) the revised FCC rules call for carriers to achieve 100-m accuracy for 67% of mobile emergency calls and 300-m accuracy for 95% of all of these calls.

Carriers going the handset route (GPS) must demonstrate an accuracy of 50 m for 67% of its emergency calls and 150 m for 95% of those calls.

Many of the carriers that chose the handset method are having trouble because, if you have any experience with handheld GPS systems, you know how hard it is to a) "see" the satellites from indoors and b) get a location in the first place. Cold start GPS locations can take from 10 to 15 minutes in some cases.

GPS can be more accurate but has signal issues with the satellites.

By the end of 2005 carriers were supposed to be done with this, but the FCC granted extensions to several since the technology just isn't there yet at a cost that consumers are willing to bear.

[ilbob]

We've a 911 call from this house, reporting screaming and shouting. May we check all of the rooms in the house?
Are they telling the truth? If you are in the house, you would probably know if there was any screaming or shouting.
Someone shot up your neighbor's garage - may we have your pistol for ballistics testing?
No! Get a lawyer and say no more.
Can you give us a list of all of the political donations you've made in the last 4 years?
This kind of question is becoming pretty common these days.
A neighbor of yours reported seeing someone going in a window at the rear of your house. May we sweep the rooms
Are they telling the truth? Was the neighbor telling the truth? I might invite them to go around back and take a look.

[goon]

Well if it was an honest mistake I don't see what the issue really is.
I generally am a little uncomfortable with cops I don't know being around too but look at their point of view.
They got a report of a 911 hang up to check out. They come to your house and see you and your wife and dog, so they probably aren't thinking that there is a crazed gunman in the back room. But if you were being held hostage how would you act? What if there is a gunman in another room holding your ten year old son?

They got a report and they showed up.
At least they showed up.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Ilbob,

The real problem is that a there is no means by which these incidents can be reviewed by an independent entity and appropriate disciplinary action taken if warranted. At present, virtually all LE agencies investigate complaints against themselves. It is very difficult for any entity made up of human beings to investigate itself in a fair and open means. It may happen in some departments, but I do not believe that is the norm.

I agree entirely,
Some areas have 'civilian review boards', however, most have members appointed by the chief of police. Purely cosmetic, most of the 'cop bashing' LEO's complain about so much is that the police will defend even the most marginal judgment call by another LEO.

That said, the policeman involved could very well have been most professional and displayed the utmost courtesy. Asking to search the house with only the strength of an alledged 911 call shifts just a bit too close to the dark side for my taste. Maybe he had reason, I don't know I wasn't there. I will not condemn him for it but would be curious of his past encounters.


Selena

[ilbob]

Some areas have 'civilian review boards', however, most have members appointed by the chief of police. Purely cosmetic, most of the 'cop bashing' LEO's complain about so much is that the police will defend even the most marginal judgment call by another LEO.

I was reading on second city cop blog the other day. Some of the posters are furious that police involved shootings are no longer being investigated by detectives but by some other entity. A number of posters kept saying things like the detectives were supposed to help them come up with a good story and such. I felt the need to point out that the detectives should be trying to find out what really happened, not trying to come up with a story that made the shooter look better. Most of the posters did not seem to feel that way at all.

[RPCVYemen]

Are they telling the truth? If you are in the house, you would probably know if there was any screaming or shouting.

The point of my post was not to convince you that my choices were correct.

You had said:

There really is no middle ground.

My argument is that there is a middle ground - I can object to some searches and give permission to others.

You may object to the choices I make, but do you agree that there is a middle ground in the sense that I can object to some searches, and object to others?

Mike

[ilbob]

Some areas have 'civilian review boards', however, most have members appointed by the chief of police. Purely cosmetic, most of the 'cop bashing' LEO's complain about so much is that the police will defend even the most marginal judgment call by another LEO.
In my county the SA has the grand jury review any police involved shooting. Its a good step, but you still have an entity investigating itself.

There was a recent cop involved shooting in Rockford where the cops killed an 80 YO armed robbery victim. The cops spent a lot of time pointing out the minor gambling convictions of the victim, and that the armed robbery was of a low stakes poker game (I think the robbery netted less then $100, which was casually mentioned toward the end of the story).

The guy who is dead cannot talk for himself, and the cops have no incentive to tell the truth if it is not in their favor. So, who knows what happened. The only other people present were the robbers (three of them apparently) and they are not real credible. So one is left with the unsatisfying situation of never really knowing what actually happened.

[AndyC]

911 phone phreakers face jail

SWAT chaos 'mastermind' pleads guilty
By John Leyden
Published Monday 19th November 2007 15:55 GMT

An Ohio man faces an extended spell behind bars after pleading guilty to making emergency calls using spoofed caller ID numbers as part of a prank designed to make sure his victims were raided by SWAT teams.

Stuart Rosoff (AKA Michael Knight) of Cleveland, Ohio was part of a gang of "swatters" that used social engineering tricks to find the phone number of intended victims, selected from members of telephone chat lines frequented by Rosoff and his cronies. The gang - one of them blind - used VoIP connections to place calls about fake hostage crises to regular police lines, ensuring that their victims would receive a visit from armed cops.

Typically the gang would claim that the caller was heavily armed, high on drugs and had already killed members of his family. The childish ruse cost disruption to emergency services and claimed 100 victims as well as running up an estimated $250,000 in losses. At least two of the victims received injuries including an infirm, elderly man from New Port Richey, Florida. Rosoff admitted knowledge of the man's injuries, according to court documents.

The gang, allegedly led by Rosoff, are blamed for more than 60 "SWAT" calls. Many of the victims were selected from the friends and family of participants in multiple party chat line groups including Jackie Donut, the Seattle Donut, and the Boston Loach frequented by Rosoff and three of his co-defendants.

Using a mixture of social engineering techniques (including pretexting), the gang obtained contact details of their victims. At the same time, they used hacking techniques to obtain free phone calls, which they used to place bogus emergency calls, or to switch off the service of enemies.

A DoJ statement on the case gives further details on the misguided pranks. As Wired notes the release of details of the alleged crimes (several of which took place in 2006) eased fears that the emergency 911 system itself was hacked.

Rosoff recently pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in a federal court in the Northern District of Texas. He faces a maximum statutory sentence of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and restitution. Rosoff has been held in remand since his arrest in June.

The three other alleged conspirators in the scam - Jason Trowbridge, Angela Roberson and Chad Ward - were all arrested in June. Robertson, who was released on bail, pleaded guilty to conspiracy in October. Trowbridge and Ward, who are both in custody, face a trial due to begin on 17 December. Another co-conspirator Guadalupe Santana Martinez, of Washington, faces a sentencing hearing in January 2008 after pleading guilty to conspiracy.

Wired adds that the alleged hacking mastermind behind the prank calls was a blind youngster from Boston, identified in three separate guilty pleas as "M.W."
The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/19/911_phone_phreakers/)

[ilbob]

You may object to the choices I make, but do you agree that there is a middle ground in the sense that I can object to some searches, and object to others?
There is no middle ground once you let them in. They can go fishing for anything at that point. The choice is either let them in or not. There is no middle ground, because you can't say you can come in and only do X, but not Y and Z.

[Deanimator]

I was reading on second city cop blog the other day.
EVERYBODY should read that blog at least once.

I'm especially fascinated by the repeated defenses of the cop who stomped on the barmaid's head because she wouldn't serve him more alcohol after he got drunk, then threatened to plant drugs on her and the bar owner if she didn't drop the charges against him.

[ilbob]

EVERYBODY should read that blog at least once.

I'm especially fascinated by the repeated defenses of the cop who stomped on the barmaid's head because she wouldn't serve him more alcohol after he got drunk, then threatened to plant drugs on her and the bar owner if she didn't drop the charges against him.

SCC is moderated too, and the mod periodically posts that he does not allow some posts. I am sometimes amazed at some of the things he does allow, since they make Chicago cops look like 2 bit thugs pretty regularly. Usually some other cop will tell off the thuggish ones. Of course, there is no way to know if anyone is really who they say they are on an anonymous blog. I do give SCC a lot of credit for not deleting the posts that reflect poorly on Chicago coppers, and a fair number of their own posts make them look really bad. I'm sure a lot of it is just venting, but some of it approaches criminal.

Many of the cop forums have changed their posting rules so only cops can see the more interesting things, like how to write reports that will sustain arrests as opposed to writing the facts. Officer.com used to have most of that kind of stuff out in the open, now it is hidden. I can see why they would hide it.

[Old Dog]

I'm amazed this thread is still open.

A thread about police response to an apparent 911 hang-up is an excuse for everyone to jump onboard with comments about how corrupt Chicago PD is? And how LE agencies typically investigate allegations of their own personnels' misconduct?

This is still gun-related? Please.

Many of the cop forums have changed their posting rules so only cops can see the more interesting things, like how to write reports that will sustain arrests as opposed to writing the facts. Officer.com used to have most of that kind of stuff out in the open, now it is hidden. I can see why they would hide it.Are these comments truly relevent to gun-related general discussion? Certain members seem to really enjoy posting comments pertaining to LEO misconduct in almost every type of thread. Does this really further the purpose of RKBA discussion?

[Checkman]

What???? I spend all day stomping on the constitution and all you offer me is a light beer???!!! :evil:::what:

And the wheels on the bus go round and round.:rolleyes:

Sorry just thought I would be totally unconstructive.

[ilbob]

Are these comments truly relevent to gun-related general discussion? Certain members seem to really enjoy posting comments pertaining to LEO misconduct in almost every type of thread. Does this really further the purpose of RKBA discussion?
The original post had nothing to do with guns either.

I find the back and forth informative. Very few people realize how very limited their rights are.

Whether it furthers the purpose of the RTKBA depends on your POV. Until you understand just how far your other rights have been suppressed you may not be in a position to see how far your RTKBA has been suppressed.

I am a skeptic of government, as most of us are, or should be at least. LE is the enforcement arm of government. That means you have to be skeptical of LE in general. They are there to further the aims of government, not individuals.

It does always seem to boil down to an us versus them thing though. Thats unfortunate, and maybe it should not be that way, but long history has shown that government unchecked will violate your rights. At some point you have to stand up against it, or the situation will not improve.

[ilbob]

What???? I spend all day stomping on the constitution and all you offer me is a light beer???!!!
How about a St Pauli Girl dark instead?

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Ilbob,

It does always seem to boil down to an us versus them thing though. Thats unfortunate, and maybe it should not be that way, but long history has shown that government unchecked will violate your rights.

The Founders in their wisdom set us up with an advesarial justice system. 'Us v. them' is the definition not what it seems to be.

Selena

[ilbob]

The Founders in their wisdom set us up with an advesarial justice system. 'Us v. them' is the definition not what it seems to be.

True. It is sad that in many areas of the country the average citizen fears the cops almost as much as he fears the criminals though.

It would be nice if cops could somehow be our buddies while still being LEOs. But it can't work that way.

[Old Dog]

Until you understand just how far your other rights have been suppressed you may not be in a position to see how far your RTKBA has been suppressed.
Well, ilbob, some of us have a pretty good grasp on just how much our rights have been "suppressed." And some of us also see the big picture pretty clearly. It's all relative, I suppose, and the only statement you've made I agree with is when you say that it "depends on your POV." Some of us have actually been around the block a time or two. With a double-major (from a liberal state university, no less) in political science (emphasis on Constitutional Law) and history, more'n twenty years active duty military with experience living in countries where one's rights are truly suppressed, and more'n a few years in both corrections and law enforcement ... I'm a skeptic, too ... of folks who see only problems or focus on isolated cases, can't follow trends of improvement (shall-issue concealed carry laws or sunsetting of the '94 AWB for example) and never seem to propose solutions or even general ideas for improving on every negative situation they seem to believe supports their position that everything is getting worse ...

It is sad that in many areas of the country the average citizen fears the cops almost as much as he fears the criminals though. Oh, c'mon now. Support this, please. "Fears" the cops? The average citizen?

[Officers'Wife]

HI Ilbob,

True. It is sad that in many areas of the country the average citizen fears the cops almost as much as he fears the criminals though.

Government operate on fear, one of the first acts of the federal government was to send in troops to smash a protest against the taxing of whiskey. No branch of government is designed to be our friend, no branch is designed to protect the individual. The government's only aim is the seizing of more power, the individual's duty is to prevent them from grabbing too much. The police are an evil, albeit a necessary one. Much in the line of the fable of the shepard that got a large mean dog to protect his sheep from wolves. He decided since he had the dog he no longer had to watch the sheep and went to do other things. The dog, of course, ate all the sheep. The police are our mean dog, unfortunately- we are the sheep.

Selena

[RPCVYemen]

The Founders in their wisdom set us up with an advesarial justice system.

What you say is true - but I think it's only part of the story.

I benefit by the actions of the police - I really want them to fully investigate any 911 call that is reported to come from my house. If they get a call that someone's come in the back window of my house - I really, really want them doing the sweep. I sure ain't qualified.

Here's a clearer example. A long time ago, I used to hitchhike a lot. I was in school in NC, and had buddies in Memphis and NYC. I'd have a beer or two and decide to hit the road. In those day, if you hitchhiked, you had fairly constant contact with the police. They might ask you for ID, search you, etc.

That seems like a clearly adversarial role.

But - and this was a big but - I really, really wanted them doing that.

Why? Would I rather meet some escaped convict under a bridge abutment at 3:00 AM, or have the police pick him up first? The answer was pretty obvious to me.

In fact, I probably benefited more from their stopping and questioning hitchhikers than the non-hitchhikers on the road ! Why - I was more vulnerable than people in metal and steel boxes speeding along.

I am very, very happy the police were out there doing that job. Hitchhiking isn't like a plane/train schedule. If someone had decided to kill me, it would be day until anyone realized I was missing, and in all likelihood my body would never have been found.

In truth, I never provoked a confrontation, and never did anything stupid like carry dope while I was hitching. Most of the time, after a short conversation, I was on my way. One time I had to sit in a police car for about an hour - because there was a murder suspect in the area. But that was fine. If there is a murder suspect on the road, where's the safest place to be? I'll let you pick - under a bridge abutment, or in the front seat of a police car. My money is on the front seat of a police car.

So while the court system is adversarial, I don't buy that the law enforcement system is adversarial (or only adversarial).

Mike

[RPCVYemen]

It is sad that in many areas of the country the average citizen fears the cops almost as much as he fears the criminals though.

I really want to see some support for this, too. Quotes from Al Sharpton won't be enough - I want to see evidence that the average citizen fears the police almost as much as he fears the criminals.

Mike

BTW - I am not trying to inject a racial element here. It happens that the only person I have ever heard make that claim was Rev. Sharpton.

[Checkman]

Officer's wife.

Based on your handle and your tank comment am I to assume you are married to an officer in the military? Possibly an armor officer? If so do you appreciate the irony? Many look upon the military the same way. Or perhaps you hate the military or you have no involvement with the military.

If this is the case disregard my clever ironic observation.

[Deanimator]

Oh, c'mon now. Support this, please. "Fears" the cops? The average citizen?
I think he exaggerates the extent of such feelings, but it's clearly there in specific locales, Chicago and New Orleans in particular.

Most of the Chicagoans I know have as little to do with the Chicago PD as possible. Very few of them have had positive experiences with them. And that's when they were the VICTIMS of crimes, not suspects. I've personally seen the Chicago PD simply pack up and leave when informed that they were called because White youths were engaged in criminal activity in a majority Black neighborhood. They're frequently hostile, arrogant, aggressive and act as though they are in a class above the citizens. As noted elsewhere, check out http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com for their attitudes toward the public, in their own words.

Given their histories, it's hardly surprising that people would want nothing to do with the Chicago or New Orleans PDs.

[ilbob]

In those day, if you hitchhiked, you had fairly constant contact with the police. They might ask you for ID, search you, etc.

That seems like a clearly adversarial role.

But - and this was a big but - I really, really wanted them doing that.
If you really, really wanted them doing that, that is a personal choice. It should not be forced on everyone who does not make that choice.

[ilbob]

Oh, c'mon now. Support this, please. "Fears" the cops? The average citizen?

I think he exaggerates the extent of such feelings, but it's clearly there in specific locales, Chicago and New Orleans in particular.

How about a thought experiment.

You are driving down the road minding your own business, not bothering anyone, not violating the speed limit or any other law as far as you know. You pass a cop on the side of the road. He pulls out behind you and turns on his lights.

Since you were not committing any crime, obviously the cop is after you for some other reason.

[Old Dog]

You're really stretching now, bob.

[DragonFire]

You are driving down the road minding your own business, not bothering anyone, not violating the speed limit or any other law as far as you know. You pass a cop on the side of the road. He pulls out behind you and turns on his lights.

Since you were not committing any crime, obviously the cop is after you for some other reason.

Nevermind the obvious that he wouldn't pull you over for NO reason.

Supposed you are inadvertanly speeding? Or there's a APB for a car like yours for a robbery or hit an run? Or you have a tail-light out? Or some other reason.

I wouldn't be happy to be pulled over, but I can't say I would be afraid. I've had contact with my share of cops who were idiots, or who were on power trips (though probably less than I have "regular" idots and power-mongers). Not once was I ever afraid of them, or what they would do to me. Nor did I eve think a cop "was out to get me".

On a couple of the few tickets I've gotten, the cops have actually minimized the infractions, and given me advice on how to lessen my fines.

[Deanimator]

Since you were not committing any crime, obviously the cop is after you for some other reason.
But you don't know what that reason is. How I react depends upon where I am.

Rocky River, OH - I'm not worried that he's going to rob or murder me. I answer whatever questions he has to the extent to which I'm required by law. I'm polite but not overly friendly. Of course I'm that way with all strangers. I don't consent to any searches. I NEVER consent to ANY searches.

Chicago, IL - I don't pull over until I'm in a well lit area with witnesses, and preferably one likely to have surveillance cameras. I refuse ALL conversation with him. I limit myself to the minimum interaction permitted by law. I am prepared for the possibility that he may commit a violent crime against me. I must decide whether I will attempt to defend myself. If I feel that my life is in imminent danger from his unlawful action, I will do ANYTHING necessary to protect myself.

All police departments and police officers are NOT the same.

[DrewH]

I lived in Chicago for several years as a college student and didn't particularly fear the Chicago PD. Didn't have many interactions with them, but I was in a car with friends stopped and detained by CPD officers (for an illegal U-turn in a mighty beat up old car) and the interaction was perfectly reasonable and polite.

I accidentally called 911 once (not in Chicago, in Alexandria, VA) and police came to my house (as I hope they would) and they, after seeing I was OK, left without going in the house. Again perfectly professional, polite conversation.

Reading these posts, it sure seems the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Remember when the police visited Jaffrey Dahmer's (the cannibalistic killer) apartment in, I think, Milwaukee, and left after determining (incorrectly) things were fine? I don't recall the aftermath but I think the officers may have been fired. It's just part of their duties to make sure things are OK after receiving a 911 call.

A large number of people on this board seem have a strongly antagonistic attitude towards government in general and the police. My experience is that is much less true of the average citizen, and I am thankful for that.

[DrewH]

Oops, double post

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Checkman

The tank comment is from a rather embarrassing circumstance I laugh at myself about. My Husband is Special Forces and not in armor.


If so do you appreciate the irony? Many look upon the military the same way. Or perhaps you hate the military or you have no involvement with the military.

No, I have no hatred of the military anymore than I do law enforcement. As for the irony, leaf through the literature from the time of the founding and you will see that most of the Fathers believed a standing army to be the greatest danger to liberty. Thus their plan for reliance on militia's and one of the principles behind the Second Amendment. And if you are tempted to tell me the National Guard is the militia remember Jay (I believe, possibly Franklin) forbade the use of militia outside the state lines of where that militia was formed. I won't bother with the time differential as it's overused.

As well, our military has far more overseers than, say BATF. Just as an example, had it been Marine or SF sniper's at Ruby Ridge do you really believe the troops would have gotten commendations as the FBI personnel did? Or if 101st troops and tanks had be at Waco would the troops not have been tried as BATF?

Or going back into ancient times, when the vote for tribal council was interfered with by armed agents of the United States and the American Indian Movement staged a protest at Wounded Knee. Who was involved in the seige? As a hint the Commander of the 82th Airborne was invited to help.

Selena

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Ilbob,

True. It is sad that in many areas of the country the average citizen fears the cops almost as much as he fears the criminals though.

I don't think it would be fear as much as disgust. Of the police I've been around (discounting my brother in law who I will not make comments about ) for every one that appeared to have his mind on the job at hand there are seven that are condesending, rude or just plain arrogant. When the employees consider themselves better than those they are working for it's time for a change.

Selena

[ilbob]

When the employees consider themselves better than those they are working for it's time for a change.
Keep in mind they do not work for us, they work for some government entity.

[Checkman]

Officer's Wife

Okay. I spent fourteen years in the green machine (eight on active and the rest in the NG and Reserve). I was armor, signal corp and military intelligence on active duty. No Special Forces, just plain old line troops.

I've been a cop for the past seven years. I can't speak for the Federal side of law enforcement and I have no knowledge about the Chicago PD beyond what I read in the news or find on the Internet.

However since this thread began about responses to 911 let me assure you that I have yet to see a Federal agent or a Chicago City police officer responding to a 911 call in my city. So I can only speak from my experience.

In the past seven years I've forced, i.e. kicked, open a door while responding to a 911 call twice. The first time the neighbors stated that they had witnessed a man and woman fighting and the man was seen dragging the woman into the house. We got no response to our repeated knocking and pounding and the house was dark and quiet. I kicked the door and the husband was arrested for Domestic Battery.

Approximately five weeks ago I responded to another 911 call in which the neighbor said her next door neighbors were fighting in the yard, broke sa window then went inside. It was nighttime and raining. I arrive on scene and I immediately observed blood smeared on the front door, the house and the broken window. Once again we got no response. So I once again kicked open the door.

The woman's boyfriend was hiding in the attic. He was arrested for Domestic Battery. The woman's twenty year old son had an arrest warrant and also went to jail. As crazy as it sounds the woman was belligerent and violent towards me so she went to jail for Resisting and Obstructing.

The 911 disconnects I handle this way

Hi we got a 911 call from here. Is everything okay? (Lets assume they say it is). Okay well for peace of mind can I can in and just look around. As hard as it sounds folks sometimes lie to us. If they say yes I walk in, look around (I don't care about paraphernalia in that case), thank them and leave. If they so no I explain to them that if anything is wrong let me know now. If they say it's okay I leave. My hands are clean at that point.

I've even gone as far as tell some known dopers that I don't care if I see anything (give them a knowing look), but I need to make sure everyone is okay. Usually they let me in and I stay true to my word as it regards pipes etc.

Trust me. I have many overseers. Many many overseerers. Here in my town (hey we're CPD also) we don't just roll from one felony/misdemeanor to another. Honest.

Hey would I lie? I'm a cop. Ooops. :o

[Deanimator]

I lived in Chicago for several years as a college student and didn't particularly fear the Chicago PD.
I grew up in Chicago and spent all of my life there until I went to college and became an Army officer.

The Chicago PD is systemically corrupt and brutal. The entire system is broken, from the top on down.

The last Police Superintendent overruled a disciplinary board and gave an officer a THIRTY DAY SUSPENSION for blowing off the head of an unarmed, unthreatening man. The officer has since admitted under oath that the shooting was UNJUSTIFIED.

Until recently, there was a home invasion, burglary, kidnapping ring operating INSIDE the Chicago PD. The unit in which the ring operated was so compromised that it has since been disbanded.

A cop who savagely beat a barmaid for refusing to serve him, then threatened to frame her and several others if she didn't drop the charges, was first charged with a MISDEMEANOR. He has since been shown preferential treatment by police on multiple occasions. While suspended, he is STILL a Chicago police officer.

Chicago police officers were recently videotaped stealing from boxcars in a rail yard.

Chicago police officers responding to 911 calls of a bar fight in which cops savagely beat several citizens allowed themselves to be waived off by the perpetrators.

The Chicago PD for years ran a torture chamber that made Abu Ghraib look like Sandals resort. The city is paying all of the legal bills for the man who ran it. Mayor Daley was State's Attorney during the worst of the torture, and prosecuted suspects based on confessions obtained under torture. City lawyers are acting in effect as his personal attorneys.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

The Chicago PD is rotten to the core, always has been, and probably always will be, since the people seem to like it that way. It is simply irredeemably evil.

[ilbob]

Remember when the police visited Jaffrey Dahmer's (the cannibalistic killer) apartment in, I think, Milwaukee, and left after determining (incorrectly) things were fine? I don't recall the aftermath but I think the officers may have been fired. It's just part of their duties to make sure things are OK after receiving a 911 call.

IIRC, they did not follow department policy because they thought what was going on was some kind of homosexual love fest. I don't recall they were fired though.

[ilbob]

Chicago police officers were recently videotaped stealing from boxcars in a rail yard.

can't forget the chief of detectives that was running a burglary/fencing operation out of his office.

i really have some sympathy for honest Chicago cops. there are bound to be a lot of them, and they are in a no win situation.

that does not mean I wish to take on extra risk when encountering them.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Ilbob,

Keep in mind they do not work for us, they work for some government entity.

In the US the government (and entities thereof) derive their power from the governed. Despite what Clinton and company would like you to believe the Constitution does not grant you right, it takes away rights by granting certain and precisely defined powers to the government.

[Glockamania®]

The Roswell police were let in by my wife after they said they received a 911 call from our address.

4th Amendment no no.

[RPCVYemen]

You are driving down the road minding your own business, not bothering anyone, not violating the speed limit or any other law as far as you know. You pass a cop on the side of the road. He pulls out behind you and turns on his lights.

Since you were not committing any crime, obviously the cop is after you for some other reason.

Actually, I have never thought that the officer in that situation was "after me" in that situation.

When that happens to me, I generally feel immediately guilty and check my speedometer. :) My guess is that 95% of us do that.

If I am not speeding, then I am more curious than anything else. I wonder why he is stopping me. I can't say that fear or disgust has ever entered into it. One time, it was a similarly colored car pulling away from a gas station or running out on a restaurant bill, or something like that. In a couple of minutes, I was on my way.

Is that a fair response to your thought experiment? If I am doing something wrong (speeding), I feel guilty. If I am not doing something wrong, I am curious.

Mike

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Checkman,

Hey would I lie? I'm a cop. Ooops.

To my knowledge you haven't yet and simple courtesy demands I give you the benefit of the doubt. For most people, it's the 'cop attitude' that causes the immediate distrust. From the sounds of it you are one of the minority that know the use of common sense in doing your job. Although, I will admit to having a slight twinge at the thought of 'making deals' (I'll only see what I need to see) but as I have said before and will no doubt say again, I wasn't there and don't know the situation so my twinges are irrelevant.

Just do me a favor- If you ever happened to find yourself on duty and pull over a pickup... If the guy gets out of the truck and is wearing and artificial leg, please do not walk up to him with your hand on your sidearm. And if you do and he tells you to file the front sight off so it don't hurt so much when he rams it... you get the picture... He's getting out because his leg stump is hurting him, Just say 'back up Captain" and give him a moment. OK?

Selena

[Checkman]

Officer's Wife

After seven years I've learned which battles are worth fighting at that moment and which ones can be returned to later. Young officers want to take on the world and go after everything. Marijuana seeds in the floorboard, somebody having left their driver license at home,a roach clip etc. These things rate up there with drive-bys, murder, rape, arson, bank robbery etc.

I'm 39 so it didn't take very long after getting hired that I realized there are many leaks in the dike. You plug the bigger holes and keep an eye on the smaller ones. I'm about keeping the peace and going home at the end of my shift. The worlds problems are alot bigger than me.

Nice talking to you and I'll keep an eye out for the Captain.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Checkman,

In that case good at ya, I've heard stats that only one in ten crimes actually lead to an arrest. I would far prefer the one to be a murderer, a rapist or drunk driver than a simple possession. And for the record I think marijuana is the biggest bit of stupidity people can inflict on themselves.

Selena

[akodo]

At which point she is also tied up. So know you are both sitting the tied up with duct tape over you mouth. When suddenly there is a knock at the door. The robbers take off there masks, two of them sit on the couch while the third answers the door. He talks to the officer, tells him everything is fine in the house, it had to be a mistake for him to have to come out here to waste his time. Ever though the man is noticably nervice and sweating when the house is cool, the officer leaves. Now you are screwed, I mean you saw there faces right? Do you like the way this is going to end or would you have rather had the officer investigate a little further?

you are basing this scenario off of a false starting premise, that my safety from criminals is more important than my freedom.

you can lock us all up in golden cages full of luxury and insure our safety, but that isn't freedom.

Yes, I'd rather risk a muderer rushing in and fooling the police than allow police to search the home without very very solid cause.

How many other such scenarios can you cook up? Should I consent to police being able to search any vehicle any time they want because of the scenario of badguys kidnapping you and putting you in the truck as they drive out of town to execute you? "Too bad you don't let cops search cars whenever they want, that would have saved you in this very rare circumstance!"

[akodo]

At which point she is also tied up. So know you are both sitting the tied up with duct tape over you mouth. When suddenly there is a knock at the door. The robbers take off there masks, two of them sit on the couch while the third answers the door. He talks to the officer, tells him everything is fine in the house, it had to be a mistake for him to have to come out here to waste his time. Ever though the man is noticably nervice and sweating when the house is cool, the officer leaves. Now you are screwed, I mean you saw there faces right? Do you like the way this is going to end or would you have rather had the officer investigate a little further?

you are basing this scenario off of a false starting premise, that my safety from criminals is more important than my freedom.

you can lock us all up in golden cages full of luxury and insure our safety, but that isn't freedom.

Yes, I'd rather risk a muderer rushing in and fooling the police than allow police to search the home without very very solid cause.

How many other such scenarios can you cook up? Should I consent to police being able to search any vehicle any time they want because of the scenario of badguys kidnapping you and putting you in the truck as they drive out of town to execute you? "Too bad you don't let cops search cars whenever they want, that would have saved you in this very rare circumstance!"

[perpster]

Ever seen a search warrant execution? It's a bit more thorough than a few questions and a quick look around to make sure there isn't a crime afoot, and that there won't be a call for a foul odor in a few days.

If you were the cop responding to a 911 call and you saw a gun safe, wouldn't you want to know if there were any guns unaccounted for for your own safety and the safety of possible victims/hostages in the house?

Did the officer throw you and your loved ones against the wall and frisk you?

If you did call 911 and the cops didn't make a cursory investigation would you be happy about it?

As the moderator mentioned several times, there is an EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement. There is also a PLAIN VIEW exception. If your wife let the cops in voluntarily it applies. From the OP, the cops were let in. They didn't force entry.

Most folks would rather not be bothered by the police for no reason, but most folks would like the cops to do their job properly when there is a reason. It comes down to a bit of common sense and common courtesy.

[cassandrasdaddy]

"Of the police I've been around (discounting my brother in law who I will not make comments about ) for every one that appeared to have his mind on the job at hand there are seven that are condesending, rude or just plain arrogant."

really? thats a fascinating experience very different from mine. what is the nature and frequency of these interactions? the years i've had quite a few interactions of a proffesional nature with law enforcement

[cassandrasdaddy]

"Are they telling the truth? If you are in the house, you would probably know if there was any screaming or shouting."


but if you have kids would you notice or think anything of it. got kids bob?or just quiet ones?

[Officers'Wife]

cassandrasdaddy

really? thats a fascinating experience very different from mine. what is the nature and frequency of these interactions? the years i've had quite a few interactions of a proffesional nature with law enforcement

I'm happy for you.
Ex. #1. County sheriff parked in drive of (unoccupied) farmstead. Owner asked him to leave the farmstead as he was upsetting the cattle. Deputy got in Gramps' face and demanded to know what he had to hide.

Ex. #2, A friend of mine in Chicago could no longer tolerate her life in her foster home. She chose to stand in front of an El train. Investigating checkerboard comment - Here's one that won't be a hooker. Donna was 13.

Ex #3, Dad's stump (he lost a leg in Vietnam) was bothering him so he pulled over and was completely off the highway. County Deputy stopped inquired to situation. When Dad explained he was told if he was that crippled up he shouldn't be on the highway.

Now, is it your intention to come across as belligerent? Sometimes on the net it is hard to tell.

Selena

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Perp,

If you were the cop responding to a 911 call and you saw a gun safe, wouldn't you want to know if there were any guns unaccounted for for your own safety and the safety of possible victims/hostages in the house?

Curiosity is all well and good, 'wouldn't you want to know' is a non sequitur. Would they have the legal right to open the safe would be the consideration. I would hate to think 'need to know' supercedes the law, wouldn't you?

Selena

[perpster]

It's not "curiousity". It's making sure you go home in one piece at the end of your tour and don't fail to discover a victim or hostage. It is a balancing of the safety of the officers and civilians present versus the right to privacy. A closed gun safe may not have been closed before the police got there. Or the owner may have been forced to open it before the police got there. Or there may be other guns lying or stashed in the house (THR is full of posts about guns placed in easy reach, loaded and ready without locks on them) that could be a deadly threat. The 4th Amendment is all about REASONABLE searches and seizures. A warrant is not a sin qua non.

Perhaps people with these issues should register with their local police and government as opting out of police protection, and be given signs to post on and around their premises that no matter what happens, they don't want the police to help them. Maybe they can even get a property tax reduction. But they should make sure to tell their next of kin in advance so that the next of kin don't bother filing the inevitable lawsuit against the police/government for failing to protect them.

[perpster]

Selena,

Like in any profession, there is a broad spectrum of behavior. Clearly, you've had some less than professionally behaved LEO's. But on the facts given by the OP, it appears IMHO that the officers were acting reasonably and professionally, and just did what was necessary and no more to do their job properly and protect the public.

[cassandrasdaddy]

many of my interactions were less than happy

so of the three interactions were you there for all three?or relating them to us third hand?

and i think its 50 50 on whether i'm belligerent

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Perp,

But on the facts given by the OP, it appears IMHO that the officers were acting reasonably and professionally, and just did what was necessary and no more to do their job properly and protect the public.

In my limited understanding of the rules of evidence I must agree. Please forgive me for playing devil's advocate. It's one of my many bad habits. Quite frankly I learn a lot from the opinions of others on such issues. I appreciate your patience and courtesy.

Selena

[perpster]

NP, and my thanks to your Dad for his service and sacrifice.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi cassandrasdaddy,

so of the three interactions were you there for all three?or relating them to us third hand?

Yes, although I will admit on the second I was ten years old and already in a bad situation which may have 'colored' my perception of the event.

and i think its 50 50 on whether i'm belligerent

Please try for either one or the other. Consider this, although my opinions and communication styles are different than yours I am trying very hard to respect you. Please make the effort to return the courtesy. TYIA

Selena

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Perp,

my thanks to your Dad for his service and sacrifice.

I'll relay the message next week when we visit. I can tell you his answer will be that he is an American, thanking him for doing his duty is like thanking him for breathing.

Selena

[RPCVYemen]

It's making sure you go home in one piece at the end of your tour and don't fail to discover a victim or hostage. It is a balancing of the safety of the officers and civilians present versus the right to privacy.

This part is real important. I will jealously guard the political rights of all involved, but if a mere inconvenience to me makes for a safer situation for police officers, than that seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

When I hear people talking about how police should approach a dangerous and unknown situation, I ask, "If you son had to serve a felon warrant on a man believed to be armed (or whatever the task is), how would you want your son to do it?"

I really want police officers who are concerned with getting home in one piece at the end of the tour. Self preservation is a healthy mental concern. The alternative is to be policed by people who are not concerned with etting home in one piece at the end of the tour - and that's not mental health.

Mike

[cassandrasdaddy]

the occurences you related seemed to be examples of rudeness and stupidity in at least one case but didn't rise to the level of civil rights violations imo.how did they become symptomatic of a police conspiracy to you?

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Daddy

how did they become symptomatic of a police conspiracy to you?

Conspiracy? No. It does suggest (to me anyway) the need for a third party watchdog.

Consider: In each thread here (and I realize this is a small sample set) there has been at least one defender of possible police misconduct. Including the story a few weeks ago when an officer tried to shoot a snake out of a bird feeder and killed an innocent. There are several assumptions to made within the boundaries of the sample set But for the moment let's assume the defenders are police officers themselves which is not a strech. Persons of the same occupation tend to be hyper-sympathic to each other, that's human nature.

With this assumption, wouldn't it be logical to set a civilian reveiw board completely independant of the police/mayor/DA to investigate alledged police misconduct? A check on the exective branch at the local level? Would it be such a bad idea for the citizens to be involved in the investigation of such incidents? Wouldn't it actually make the LEO's job a bit easier as when the people know there is a disinterested third party they can air their complaints too misconceptions and grudges can be aired and resolved instead of festering? In addition, the professionals would be cleared in a way no one, not even a loud mouth rebellious kid such as I, can claim cover-up?

Selena

[DrewH]

These threads sadden me, I should stop reading them :) When did so many gun owners become so anti-police? So convinced police are the enemy? How can police responding to a 911 call, a call for help, to make sure that everyone is safe, a bad thing?

Certainly police, like any other institution with humans (I served in the Navy, plenty of screw ups, some with major consequences, in the Navy) can make mistakes, but as a whole I think they serve our interests well. Most of the police officers I have known were decent guys, with no more than the usual number of jerks.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

A lot of you seem to have some idea that you would be just fine without police. That you've got enough tactical sense and training, and that you are prepared enough to deal with the criminal element. That you'd be better off with your house as your castle, your weapons, your stored supplies, and just look out for number one.

Well I wish that you could go experience that for real. I wish you could all go someplace where there were no police and it was every man for himself.


You would get over run in less than a day. And you'd spend that day crapping yourselves before wishing there was someone you could call to help you.


How about this. Just don't call them. You'll keep living here in America where police are on the streets 24/7 on the lookout for people who want you dead. But you can at least minimize your contact with the police right? Since they are so troublesome and devious, just don't call. Next time you come home from work and your door is wide open, or your car window is smashed in, just deal with it yourself. After all, you're so much more upstanding and capable than the police. You'll be better off if you jest leave them out of the loop. Keep the problem well within your more than capable hands.

[average_shooter]

Well, the problem here is that the "jerks" get a badge and union lawyers to hide behind.

Frankly, I see that the system, both humanly and mechanically as has been stated earlier, is broken. Fix the system and problems will resolve themselves.

Maybe it would be easier if the responding officer knew for sure that an emergency call was made instead of trying to guess if it's real or is it one of the nine out of ten calls that's a fake. Take out that much guess work and I'll start to have a little more faith in "the system." But when it is openly admitted that it's broken? I have little to no faith in broken systems...

[cassandrasdaddy]

With this assumption, wouldn't it be logical to set a civilian reveiw board completely independant of the police/mayor/DA to investigate alledged police misconduct? A check on the exective branch at the local level? Would it be such a bad idea for the citizens to be involved in the investigation of such incidents? Wouldn't it actually make the LEO's job a bit easier as when the people know there is a disinterested third party they can air their complaints too misconceptions and grudges can be aired and resolved instead of festering? In addition, the professionals would be cleared in a way no one, not even a loud mouth rebellious kid such as I, can claim cover-up?


i used to work for a large company that had a driver safety committee with no truck drivers on it.it was worthless
i think review is greatand i certainly support non cop involvement in it. but a strictly noncop review board makes as much sense as my reviewing brain surgery. further the unions would never allow it. in one area i know the union is so strong that a cop in a shooting has a 5 day period before he has to make a statement.
i've had 100's of interaction with cops more than 50 that ended with me in cuffs and my "peer group" had many more encounters. and its peculiar to me that i saw so lil misconduct. and lest one think i was in an area where they had a force with a good rep most of the encounters were in pg county md and dc
i think the mindset of some of the folk on here is precisely why the unions would oppose an all civilian review

[perpster]

Maybe it would be easier if the responding officer knew for sure that an emergency call was made
Much easier said than done, unfortunately.

[average_shooter]

Much easier said than done, unfortunately.

It always is. But just because it's difficult to do doesn't mean we shouldn't. And it doesn't mean I should be forced to "believe" in a broken system. Or derided when I don't.

I think if everything was working the way it's supposed to, we would see a lot less bickering. And a lot less mistrust.

Back to the trust. Any officers here automatically trust a person you approach responding to a 911 call? No? Then I don't automatically trust you either. I not trying to be a d!ck, but fair is fair.

[siglite]

If they ask, "Mind if I have a look (in you car/house/etc) for my own safety?"
Just say "No".
"No you don't mind? Great!"
That's why we ask it that way...

I don't know how or why anyone's let this slide. sacp81170a, you used the word "we." If you're truly a law enforcement officer, this is chilling to me. Because it speaks to the MINDSET of a an LEO. The MINDSET indicated here is that constitutional rights are just a pesky annoyance to be circumvented by trickery and deceptive wording. If an LEO will stoop to deception to circumvent the rights of a citizen, then what else will they do? What other abuses are waiting in the wings? The MINDSET indicated by this comment absolutely validates the concerns being raised here. Mentally, how far is this from lying that you heard someone crying through the door as a pretense for an illegal search? What lengths are you willing to go to for an illegal search? If he was a REALLY REALLY bad guy, and you were SURE of it, would you plant a lil green and leafy packaged for distribution in his car?

I don't think LEOs are like that. I have more faith in our LEOs than that, and realize that the bad apples in LE are prone to extensive sensationalism. I'm also aware that in most departments, they HATE the bad apples and will do damn near anything to get rid of them, because it makes their job harder. How many of you read sacp81170a's post and instantly became more suspicious of LE? I honestly HOPE sacp81170a isn't a real LEO.

Jeff, I'd love to hear your take on this.

[cassandrasdaddy]

we definitley need a sarcasm icon

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Daddy,

further the unions would never allow it.

OK, you just said the magic word that I have to stop and move on. Mainly because with that word the subject goes from subjective to surreal.

Selena

[cassandrasdaddy]

on that we can surely agree

[Slugless]

I wish you could all go someplace where there were no police and it was every man for himself

Been there, done that. I should qualify that - in Nigeria it's not that there aren't no police, the police are ineffective against determined criminals.

One guy in his castle? The thugs will bring 5. You've got 5 people? They'll bring 12. You've got a squad? They'll bring a platoon.

The numbers game above are all taken from real life examples, one case of private security being overwhelmed, another a squad of Nigerian army being wiped out by "militants" (read criminal gangs who bleat political reasons for their conduct). Go to allafrica (http://allafrica.com/) and look around the site.

Man, they have AKs, GPMGs, even RPGs. And my company's installations have been attacked by squadrons of speedboats bearing all of the above weaponry. The Navy didn't do squat.

And the cops? Better have your wallet handy.

A society with no law and order is a hopeless cesspool.

You can't get much closer to a police state than this.

I hope this statement is tongue in cheek. My best friend's mom was a young girl in Nazi Germany. You think Chicago cops are bad? Try the Gestapo. Try the Nazi police who summarily executed her baker's Dutch "guest worker" because the Dutchman was trying to help the baker's family flee the Russians. They had to roll their own Dutch worker, the brother of the slain one, up in a carpet to get him out of East Prussia. Why? Because the police would have executed him. Can you imagine traveling a hundred miles wrapped up in a carpet on a horse drawn wagon because the cops are going to kill you? Give this lady a martini and hear her stories.

And China? You know how in movies the secret agents or gangsters will go to a place with a lot of background noise so they can't be overheard? Let me tell you that's a very weird experience. I got to hear true stories of Tienanmen square while walking around a helicopter landing pad, keeping far away from other Chinese.

And I've seen Chinese cops grabbing people off the street and throwing them in a paddy wagon. Entering their places of work and grabbing them.

Police state? Thank your forefathers for English common law.

[Officers'Wife]

we definitley need a sarcasm icon

That too we can both agree.

Oh, just for future reference- when I mark something 'scenario:' it is a fable. Not happened but *could* happen.

[RPCVYemen]

Much easier said than done, unfortunately.

That's precisely the point. Assuming an imperfect (human) system, You can set up a system that optimizes for false negatives (we thought a crime was not in progress, but it was) or false positives (we thought a crime was in progress but it wasn't).

Given an imperfect system, I don't see that you have another logical choice.

So it's reasonable to analyze the choices. The reasonable question to me is, "What's the cost of being wrong? For each case?"

If you optimize for false negatives - in other words, you want officers to assume that there is no crime in progress when there is a 911 hang up, then the cost of being wrong is injury/death to officers and/or civilians. If whoever answers the door says, "No problem.", the officers walk away. Some of the time the person at the door will be lying and will continue the crime when the officers walk away.

If you optimize for false positives - in other words, you want officers to assume that there is a crime in progress when there is a 911 hang up, then the cost of being wrong is inconvenience to officers and/or civilians. If whoever answers the door says, "No problem", the officers try to verify their story. Some of the time the person at the door will be telling the truth and the officers will have looked around a house unnecessarily.

In general, as a society, we had decided that we want a law enforcement system that optimizes for false positives (investigate in case of doubt), and a legal system that optimized for false negatives (innocent until proven guilty).

It seems to me that there is a fundamental choice here. If you don't want officers investigating 911 hang ups, then you have to accept the injury/death of victims when a crime is not investigated. If you want officers investigating 911 hang ups, the you have to accept the the inconvenience to lawful citizens when a non-crime is investigated.

Which do you chose?

Mike

[siglite]

cassandrasdaddy,

Was the sarcasm icon in reference to my post? If sacp81170a's post was done in sarcasm, I completely missed it. And I'd love to hear him say so.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Slugless,

Been there, done that. I should qualify that - in Nigeria it's not that there aren't no police, the police are ineffective against determined criminals.

Unfortunately police are a necessary evil. As one poster put it a balancing act between the needs of a peaceful society and individual rights. Go too far in one direction and you have the old Soviet Union, too far in the other you have a fuedal system. Which in a way is why discussions such as these are so useful

I remember a story of someplace in the south that decided with the police on their side they could stop the blacks from voting. However, most of the black men in the area had just come back from a war and outnumbered the police and kluckers making their way to the ballot box with the cartridge box. True or not I have idea none. But the moral is simple, when the authorities know if they swing too far to one direction or another there will be consequences freedom is maintained.

Selena

[average_shooter]

Which do you chose?

Personally, I choose fixing the system so rain doesn't call 911. I choose fixing the system so some punk-kid-hacker can't call 911 to a different address. I choose fixing the system so that a hang-up call is just exactly that. 911 was deliberately dialed then disconnected. Now you've got reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

[siglite]

FWIW, this "swatting", or spoofing caller-id / 911 information is TRIVIAL. You'll have a hard time finding a full description of it in the media for that reason. Most major outlets have decided going into any detail at all is irresponsible (my assumption) because even talking about it generally provides a how-to with five minutes and google. Plus, "hacked" is more sensational, but couldn't be further from the truth. ;)

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Officer'sWife and others, you seem to have an idea that most police are power hungry individuals who were drawn to the field because of an internal desire to have power over others. That you put up with their existence and their power so long as you benefit. You called them a necessary "evil".

To be honest, that might be one of the most disrespectful and disgusting things I have read on this board. To call the very people who volunteer to be awake at night scuffling with the worst of the worst while you sleep in your safe home "evil" is just astounding.

[opd743]

"Maybe it would be easier if the responding officer knew for sure that an emergency call was made instead of trying to guess if it's real or is it one of the nine out of ten calls that's a fake. Take out that much guess work and I'll start to have a little more faith in "the system." But when it is openly admitted that it's broken? I have little to no faith in broken systems..."

I would love to be able to look into the future too. Or maybe even through walls. Yeah! That's it, cops should be able to look through walls to figure out what is going on in the house! That way no one would be bothered by a false 911 hangup.

I think that we should start a "Don't Bother Me" list, just like the "Do Not Call" list. You put your name on a list and if we get a 911 call from your house we don't waste your time checking on it. That way when you fail to keep your wife and daughter from being raped you cannot sue the police. I mean it would be a real problem for you if we kocked on the door while they were being raped and it was not you that called 911.

Akodo, I did not base that scenario off of any thing false. It happened in a town about three counties over from mine. Is your freedom from an officer checking to see that there are no criminals in your house worth more than your life? If you would really rather risk a murderer entering your home and fooling the police than have us search your home with a very very solid cause, I am thinking you are refering to probable cause, I hope you are never in a situation where it is needed. If you ever need the cops I hope they don't insult you when they save your life.

Just for reference, If I come to a house and have probable cause to search it and have no warrant, the friendly cop side of me goes away if you say no. KEEP IN MIND THAT I SAID I HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE. When I get the warrant it goes like this: Knock Knock, POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT!!! Ram hits the door, FLASH BANG, get on the floor get on the floor!!! At which point everyone is searched and charged if anything is found.

Basic point is this, IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE OR THERE IS NO PROBLEM, DON'T BE AN ASS IF THE POLICE COME TO YOUR HOUSE ON A 911HANGUP CALL. We are after all here to protect everyone, even the ones that hate us.

And yes, I am a friendly cop. It took eight months for me to right twenty tickets. If I get out with a drunk in public I offer to take him home or to a motel before I think of arresting him. And, contrary to many member's belief, if I get out with some one who is carrying and has a permit, I do not take the gun and hold it till hell freezes over, like many of you think we do. I simply ask: "Where is the gun located on you and please keep your hands away from that location"

Siglite, I absoulutely agree with your post(#154) I am a cop and If he is I sure cannot see his mindset.

Taurusowner, great post and I thank you!!

[opd743]

You stated in an earlier post that your husband is Special Forces. If this is true, I cannot see how you have such a distrust for the U.S. government and LEO'S. After all, Special Forces are the "tip of the spear" for the government. They do things that would get them life in prison if it occured in the U.S. But there is that pesky double standard thing:)

[Powderman]

you are basing this scenario off of a false starting premise, that my safety from criminals is more important than my freedom.

you can lock us all up in golden cages full of luxury and insure our safety, but that isn't freedom.

Yes, I'd rather risk a muderer rushing in and fooling the police than allow police to search the home without very very solid cause.

How many other such scenarios can you cook up? Should I consent to police being able to search any vehicle any time they want because of the scenario of badguys kidnapping you and putting you in the truck as they drive out of town to execute you? "Too bad you don't let cops search cars whenever they want, that would have saved you in this very rare circumstance!"

Do you REALLY mean that?

Have you ever been a victim of a violent crime? I don't mean your garden variety mugging, but a criminal act where you truly believe that you are living your last moments on this earth?

Have you ever been at the mercy of someone bigger and stronger than you are, who has beat you almost senseless?

Have you or anyone else you know been grabbed by the arm by someone who looks like a giant, who tried to drag you off the street, all the while stating their desire to rape you?

I'll tell you this; as a matter of fact, I'll tell you ALL this:

I have.

All of these happened to me, in the wonderful City of Chicago, BEFORE I WAS 12 YEARS OLD!

It's the reason I HATE bullies.

It's the reason I DESPISE rapists.

It's the reason I am a cop now. And every time I take scum off the streets--or out of a house, I feel like I have made a difference, no matter how small.

And when I get dispatched to a 911 hangup, you can bet I'll be alert. You can bet I'll dig. You can also put money on the FACT that I WILL NOT LEAVE THAT HOUSE until I am positive, 150%, that everything is OK.

And if I believe that someone is hurt inside, or in danger, I WILL, under the provisions of the law, force entry to render aid.

Some of you have the opinion that you can stop an officer who is working under those circumstances. You have a much better chance of stopping a freight train moving at 90 mph with your bare hands.

And, what if I'm wrong? Then I'll take my lumps, thank you very much. But I'd be happy seeing you alive to complain about me.

Consider this, though: You, laying on a floor, beaten to a pulp, watching as your only hope to make it through the night--or day--turns and walks away.

How do you feel now?

[opd743]

Good post, Powderman. I too do not leave the house until I am sure everyone is O.K.

People like to complain about cops being on power trips, just getting a government paycheck, until they need us. Then if we do not get there fast enough they bash us for that and say "Where were you when I needed you?"

The solution is pretty darn clear to me, "You look after your's and I will look after mine" That way, the police will not be to blame for any of the problems of the goverment. After all, there will be no cops then and you can feel safe in your home.

[siglite]

That way when you fail to keep your wife and daughter from being raped you cannot sue the police.

Moot point OPD. SCOTUS has upheld multiple times that LE has no obligation to protect you. If they don't show up, they're not liable. You'd lose your civil suit anyway.

[Elza]

TexasRifleman: The click method has been dead for at least 10 years except in the absolute sticks.When you say “click method” are you referring to taping the hook switch or to impulse dialing (the old rotary dial type)?

Impulse dialing is still alive and well around here. I collect antique telephones and they all work flawlessly. I haven’t tried the old “hook switch tap” method since I was a kid.

TelCo’s aren’t all that quick to update. The last Crossbar 5 switch in the U.S. was removed about 10 years ago in Brooklyn, NY.

[opd743]

Siglite, did you even read the whole post? I was simply stating that if you don't like police then you should sign a "waiver" to keep us from protecting you. If you put your name on the list you can just protect yourself, I won't respond with any amount of urgency if you cal 911. But don't blame me if you are on this list and get your ass whipped and there is not a cop in sight.

[Rottresq]

I spent 26+ yesrs in law enforcement in southern CA. Responded to probably 10k 911 calls, yes most are not emergencies.

The list of why 911 is called is endless. People buy cheap cordless made in china crap phones that when their batterys go low call 911. Or people program 911 as #1 on the speed dial. Is 911 really that much harder to dial than #1? I guess. The phones are left everywhere and if the 1 is hit, 911 is called and then "noises"are heard. And cops show up. Computers hooked to the phone call 911, computer glitch, power problem, I dunno they just do. FAX machines call 911, why, again I dunno. Water during a rain storm gets into a junction box down the block, 911 is called. Payphones call 911, again why, I don't know.

When I was sent of these calls, I usually woke the homeowner up, he/she is pissed at me, as if I had any say in the matter. When they deny calling 911which was usually true, right there in front of them I called on the portable to the dispatcher and asked her to repeat the callback number on the 911. When the homowner hears their own phone number come out of the radio, they usually apologized and I apologized and went on my way.

However if it 2am and they are wide awake and I do the radio dispatcher thing and then ask, "could anyone else in your home have called sir?" And he does not go and ask the wife I'm suspicious. May I speak to your wife sir? If the answer is no, Now I'm more suspicious.

If I get the defender of the home attitude, you have no right to be here etc..., that was ok too, I call real loud into the house, "this is the police ma'am are you ok?" that usually gets some type of response. And for all you "where's your warrant?" guys. In every state in the union a police officer can enter w/out a warrant in an exigent circumstance. When I felt someone was lying I was polite but persistent. "Sir I'll be on my way if I may speak with your wife/girlfriend, otherwise, this will be a long night." As the guy thinks it over I had dispatch pull up a call history at the address, prior 911, Domestic Violence, drunks fights, whatever. And any reports taken there as well as the utilities record, now I have names/address/dates of birth, drivers license numbers, the information availableis endless if you persue it.

What I'm trying to get across is that its not a vast law enforcement plan to go to your house at midnight to "look around". A search warrant is fairly easy to obtain if needed, did it many times. And if one is needed they are in a computer program at the station, call the watch Sgt. fill out the blanks, call the on-call magistrate, they give the ok, and the electronic signature is done, and the cops are in.

The 911 system screws up, just lkie your cell phone does, so if the cops are at the door asking who called 911, be polite ask them what number called, see if its yours, or your FAX machine. And please secure the dog. I have a 117lb Rottweiler and a kennel, everyone with a dog should have a kennel. Thats where she is when strangers are in the house that I have invited. If they are not invited, she's laying on my bed.

[MakAttak]

To be honest, that might be one of the most disrespectful and disgusting things I have read on this board. To call the very people who volunteer to be awake at night scuffling with the worst of the worst while you sleep in your safe home "evil" is just astounding.

Funny, I think the doctors are a necessary evil.

Funny, I think the government is a necessary evil.

Funny, I think the entire military is a necessary evil.

And yes, I do think the police are a necessary evil.

Simply because the job is something that we would be better off if we did not need it does not mean that we think police officers/doctors/soldiers are evil. Maybe the politicians though.

Is our society so hooked on our emotions that people cannot recognize the difference between a statement of the problems in society that require that we have some enforcement arm and calling people evil?

Here's a few more for you:
Brushing your teeth is a necessary evil. Dentists are a necessary evil. Oil Changes are a necessary evil. Stoplights are a necessary evil. Vaccinations are a necessary evil. Physicals are a necessary evil. Lawyers are evil, I mean a necessary evil. Get the idea? Calling jobs a necessary evil does not mean that those who do them are themselves evil.

[Jeff22]

The difference in perspective on this topic is amazing.

Actually, it's rather disconcerting. Being aware and skeptical is one thing, and being paranoid is quite another . . . just because you don't understand something doesn't mean there's some kind of government conspiracy -- it just means that you're uninformed, and probably don't have as much "street sense" as you think you do.

As a police officer, I go to 911 hangup calls fairly frequently. It used to happen more often. Lots of wireless phones used to randomly dial 911 for some reason when the batteries got low. It doesn't seem to happen as much as it used to.

There were a number of people who responded to this discussion who were cops or communications operators who are actually familiar with the dynamics of this common situation just explained the way it was. And the people who were NOT familiar with the reality of it often times tended to paranoid interpretations of events. If you aren't familiar with something, it doesn't make you a bad person, but know what you don't know!

Most of the 911 disconnect calls I've been to were caused by kids playing with the phone, a low battery on the wireless phone, somebody making an error trying to program the phone, or bumping the "emergency" or "911" button by mistake without even knowing it. A few times it was because there was a domestic disturbance going on, and all the victim could do was get to the phone and call 911 before their significant other took the phone away or tore it off the wall . . .

A tip to the unaware or unfamiliar in dealing with the police: first of all, know who the police are! Know the difference between the city police, the county sheriff's department and the state troopers. They have slightly different but overlapping jurisdictions. Their cars are probably painted differently and they probably have different colored uniforms. Know who your primary service provider is!If you live near the border of your jurisdiction, know what the uniforms and the squad cars of the neighboring town look like. That isn't too hard -- just pay attention when driving around on your normal business, and then remember what you see. Neighboring jurisdictions back each other up all the time, and if one agency gets tied up on a major incident, the department next door may end up being primary responders to calls in your town. It happens all the time, and it is NOT evidence of a particular emergency nor of a government conspiracy . . .

If you live in the village of Hickory Hills and the Communications Center gets a 911 disconnect from your house, you may get the Hickory Hills PD or the Sheriff's Department or the State Police or cops from the next town or village over, depending upon the situation. It's not at all unusual.

Any time you interact with the police, be truthful, don't have an attitude nor appear to be concealing information and your day will go a lot smoother. Almost always when we (the cops) encounter somebody with a belligerant attitude, it's because they're trying to hide something. You don't have to offer information, but answer the legitimate questions that you are asked. If you appear to be trying to hide something, cops treat that the same way that sharks treat the smell of blood in the water . . .

Pay attention to what agency the officer works for, and ask for their name and badge number or radio number or ID number. We get issued business cards to give to people we interact with. Get a business card from officer friendly and ask for the case number of the incident (if there is one), the address of occurance and the case title, and write down the date. That way, if at some later time you need to make an inquiry or make a complaint, you'll have the information that you need.

[Deanimator]

To be honest, that might be one of the most disrespectful and disgusting things I have read on this board. To call the very people who volunteer to be awake at night scuffling with the worst of the worst while you sleep in your safe home "evil" is just astounding.
I'm just wondering how you would describe Jon Burge, Jerome Finnegan and Alvin Weems if you DIDN'T use the term "evil"...

[Deanimator]

Certainly police, like any other institution with humans (I served in the Navy, plenty of screw ups, some with major consequences, in the Navy) can make mistakes, but as a whole I think they serve our interests well. Most of the police officers I have known were decent guys, with no more than the usual number of jerks.
Running a home invasion ring doesn't typically count as a "mistake".

Neither does systematic use of torture to extract false confessions.

You need to live in Chicago for a while.

[1911 guy]

Quote:
They do things that would get them life in prison if it occured in the U.S. But there is that pesky double standard thing

I'll not comment, to keep the discussion civil. Talking trash about a woman's husband while he's doing the job your government asks him to to is childish and cowardly. Attack the argument you disagree with, not the loved ones of someone who got your goat in a discussion.

Back on topic, I've got my own opinion and feeling on the issue and have been given food for thought, from both sides, about what I currently think. I agree with a little of both camps.

[Jeff22]

Rogue cell phone has 911 on redial

Yahoo News Sunday Nov 18, 2007

WATERLOO, Iowa - A rogue cell phone is not accepting calls, but it sure likes to dial 911 operators in eastern Iowa.

Operators at the Black Hawk County Consolidated Communications Center said that they received about 400 calls from the same cell phone last week and that no one seems to be on the other line.

"That's it right now," said Dispatcher Chuck Hosier, as a phone rang in the background. "It will ring in, and it's an open line. Sometimes it rings in and drops off."

Officials can't locate the phone but have figured out that it is an old line not currently associated with a cell phone provider. Such phones, once charged up, can still place 911 calls under Federal Communications Commission rules set in 1994.

The cell phone can't receive calls, and emergency workers haven't been able to track the owner through service records, either.

"With this, we are pretty helpless," said Judy Flores, the center's administrative supervisor.

Officials are suspicious that it could be a prank — but they say it's not funny and potentially dangerous.

Until the source of the calls is found or they stop, dispatchers still have to answer every call just in case someone is on the line with an emergency

[Jeff22]

Exigent circumstance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction or a suspect will escape.

Generally, an emergency, a pressing necessity, or a set of circumstances requiring immediate attention or swift action. In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstances means:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.
People v. Ramey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976).

United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984): "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Anderson, 154 F. 3d 1225 (10th Cir, 1998) cert. denied 119 S. Ct. 2048 (1999) (citations omitted). There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence. United States v. Reed, 935 F. 2d 641 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 960 (1991). In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.

Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary. See Grosenheider, supra and United States v. David, 756 F. Supp. 1385 (D. Nev. 1991).

[Geno]

Excellent thread! I wasn't aware that these events were so frequent.

[Deanimator]

Perhaps people with these issues should register with their local police and government as opting out of police protection, and be given signs to post on and around their premises that no matter what happens, they don't want the police to help them.
I don't have "police protection" as an individual. Unless you have a "special relationship" (a specific legal term) with the police, neither do you.

Expecting the police to protect you as an individual is firmly in tooth fairy territory.

1. The police have virtually NO duty to protect you as an individual. Absent a "special relationship" (confidential informant, in custody, etc.) you're on your own. That's settled law and has been for a LONG time. If the police fail to protect you from personal harm, unless they had some actual role in the attack (not an uncommon occurance in the Jim Crow South), you have NO recourse.

2. It's physically IMPOSSIBLE for the police to protect you as an individual in most cases. When my godsister's boyfriend stabbed her to death, the Chicago PD didn't protect her in ANY way. Of course unless they've purchased a matter transporter, I wouldn't expect them to.

3. In certain places, the police don't WANT to protect you. I've been refused police protection when friends and I were subject to terroristic threats by a drug dealer. Fortunately, after being turned down flat by the Fulton, MO PD, we got the wink and the nod from the Callaway County Sheriff's Dept. regarding self-defense in Missouri. We took the hint, armed ourselves and dealt with the problem face to face. Call the Chicago PD, report cops are currently engaged in a violent crime and see what happens. The perpetrators will wave the responding units off with their badges.

When it comes to your personal safety, you're ALREADY on your own, whether you know it or not. If you can't take care of business until you can BOTH contact the police AND get them to show up (and do something), you're toast.

[foghornl]

Here is a link to an article on the "Computerworld" magazine website about an incident called "swatting"...making fake 911 calls resulting in the SWAT teams being dispatched...The article is a couple of pages long on the Computerworld website.

* Swatters tricked AT&T while making fake 911 calls

http://cwflyris.computerworld.com/t/2372879/294034/88035/2/

[ilbob]

They do things that would get them life in prison if it occured in the U.S. But there is that pesky double standard thing
There is a substantial difference between what goes on in a war zone and what goes on back at home, and the rules and laws are different. I am quite proud of how well our military follows the rules of war, and that they deal pretty harshly with those few who chose not to.

[ilbob]

i used to work for a large company that had a driver safety committee with no truck drivers on it.it was worthless

I am not advocating a civilian review board, although that is essentially what happens in some jurisdictions where deadly force incidents go to a grand jury. the grand jury system mostly works pretty well, and it is all people who are neither criminals nor cops.

there needs to be a level of independence between those investigating an incident and those involved in it. there rarely is in alleged police misconduct cases.

if you look at cases where outside agencies have investigated alleged police misconduct (mostly because it occurred outside the cop's jurisdiction), the end result is often radically different then what would have happened if it was within his jurisdiction, and X100 if he/she was on duty at the time of the incident.

the reason for that is the system naturally wants to protect its own. just human nature.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Here's a few more for you:
Brushing your teeth is a necessary evil. Dentists are a necessary evil. Oil Changes are a necessary evil. Stoplights are a necessary evil. Vaccinations are a necessary evil. Physicals are a necessary evil. Lawyers are evil, I mean a necessary evil. Get the idea? Calling jobs a necessary evil does not mean that those who do them are themselves evil.

You're throwing the word evil around like it can have any meaning you feel like. Those things are necessary inconveniences. Not evil.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi taurusowner

To be honest, that might be one of the most disrespectful and disgusting things I have read on this board. To call the very people who volunteer to be awake at night scuffling with the worst of the worst while you sleep in your safe home "evil" is just astounding.

If you read the letters sent back and forth between the Founding Fathers about the time they were realizing the Confederacy of States wasn't working you see the term 'necessary evil' used almost constantly.The Founders feared a strong central government and they feared the powers such a gov had. I don't know about you but I have it in mine those men are a bit smarter than I and tend to take their concerns to heart. I'm sorry, and just a bit concern, that you disapprove.

Selena

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Opd743,

They do things that would get them life in prison if it occured in the U.S. But there is that pesky double standard thing

I see, if you truly believe the mission(s) of SF and the cop on the street are the same you have proved my point that the police need to have a much tighter rein.

So out of curiosity. Are you saying the enemies of the United States should automatically be granted Constitutional rights merely by our being there or the citizens of the US needed to be considered as enemy combatants?

Selena

[Blackfork]

All I know about modern policing is what I read or see in the newspapers. I watched the Davidians gassed and burned. A Texas DPS officer friend of mine testified (with the jury absent) that he watched the FBI load BOTH metal doors on a truck and drive off. I read about 92 year old Kathyrn Johnson being killed by a SWAT team, drugs planted, informants threatened. I watched the Youtube of the policeman chewing out and threatening the kid in Missouri. I read the threats to the same kid posted on a police forum. I watched the Chicago policeman stomp a little woman bartender. I've seen the Youtube of the police mugging the skateboarders. I watched a California Highway patrolman assault Patricia Kronie in NO while enforcing a plainly illegal order. I watched everyone stand around and watch him without lifting a finger. I read about the local N.O. LEOs stealing cars and looting and leaving-the ones that actually existed, not the fake police on the rosters who were drawing paychecks. I read about the NJ SWAT speeding with their lights on through Georgia on the way home and threatening the policeman who pulled them over. I've seen the Hoboken SWAT guys with the Hooters girls waving guns around on the way home from Katrina. I read the about my local constable shop here in the county drinking beer out of the evidence room and getting caught when they showed up in court with a cheaper brand. (drugs and guns still missing but the case is now swept under the carpet) I saw the courtcase and guilty plea of the decorated local policeman who made a hobby of sexual assault. (several women still missing, a couple found dead) I followed Nifong. I followed the case where the SWAT team killed the gambling dentist who never owned a gun. I keep up with Cory Maye. I noted when the Dallas, Texas prosecutor Henry Wade say that if you hadn't sent a defendant to jail that you KNEW was innocent, you really weren't a prosecutor. I'm watching the FEDs ruin Red's and Richard Celata. I read about the TSA failing every test of their system at airports, virtually every time.

And on, and on, and on, and on. I'm not even mentioning the TIP of the iceberg.

If I have developed some slight scepticism and anxiety about modern policing and their "exigent circumstances", doesn't it seem like I am just paying attention?

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Powderman,

All of these happened to me, in the wonderful City of Chicago, BEFORE I WAS 12 YEARS OLD!

It's the reason I HATE bullies.

Yes, and also in the wonderful city of Chicago. The perp was a foster parent and the worker in charge wasn't interested in moving me. Being 10 years old and being beaten with the full blessing of the state makes one distrust the state and it's agents. I guess it's different perceptions make people come to different conclusions.

Selena

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Deanimator,

You need to live in Chicago for a while.

With all due respect sir, that isn't very high road. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!

Selena

[Officers'Wife]

Hi 1911 guy,

In all things the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Sometimes people get so involved in their particular sacred cow they forget it's just beefsteak to someone else.

Selena

[Officers'Wife]

Hi MakAttak,

In my humble opinion your def of 'necessary evil' is far too broad. To me a 'necessary evil' denotes a act, item or entity with the potential of doing great harm that exests to prevent a greater harm.

Take the army for an example, without the ability to mount an armed defense a country would be attacked and conquered easily. The Founders feared a standing army, looking at history that fear is easily understood, thus the importance of the militia in early America.

Likewise the police force, I believe the civil rights violations in the deep south were mentioned. But, in order to maintain a peaceful society those that commit violence must be removed. (Straight out of Rousseau) Making the police a necessary evil.

Government itself can be a major evil without limits, Germany, the old USSR and various African countries in ancient times are the prime example. However, without government we wouldn't have the infrastructure necessary for a productive society.

But, and this is important, it must be remembered that the necessary evils are our servants. The moment they become our master they become the evil they exist to prevent.

This is what my Dad called civics 101 people, it's not rocket science.

Selena

[DrewH]

Running a home invasion ring doesn't typically count as a "mistake".

Neither does systematic use of torture to extract false confessions.

You need to live in Chicago for a while.

I lived in Chicago for six years. Back when they announced the handgun ban actually; 1979-1985. I am well aware of several (not all) of the scandals you talk about-the torture thing was going on when I was there. I don't agree with you the CPD is pure evil. I know that is your belief, I have read enough of your past posts on the Chicago Police to get your position. My opinion is different.

Anyway, what the heck does the alleged evil of the Chicago Police Department, or how rudely police treated me in the past, or debating the highly dubious proposition of whether we are in currently in a police state, or whether I go around in fear of cops, or the merits of civilian review boards for police, have to do with guns? Aren't there other fora to discuss these topics? The OP made a small link to guns but this thread seems to have drifted way off track.

[Officers'Wife]

Hi Blackfork

Keep in mind though that what you read in the papers are rare events, if they were commonplace they would no longer be news. In a way such reports are good news. Bad law enforcement, much like criminals, cannot stand the light of day. One of the reasons the 1st amendment wasn't concern with what style tops Betsy Ross was wearing or Ben Franklin's horn doggery but the abuses of a newly made government.

Selena

[DrewH]

Hi Deanimator,


Quote:
You need to live in Chicago for a while.

With all due respect sir, that isn't very high road. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy!

I greatly enjoyed my Chicago years. I look back on the time in my life (I attended the University of Chicago and stayed on before I left for the Navy) very fondly. I am now in that small minority of people who couldn't live there because of my guns, and think it is too bad they ban most guns, but I liked the city very much.

I will concede the winters could be kind of tough as well :) And with that, I will try to bow out of this thread.

[Deanimator]

I greatly enjoyed my Chicago years. I look back on the time in my life (I attended the University of Chicago and stayed on before I left for the Navy) very fondly. I am now in that small minority of people who couldn't live there because of my guns, and think it is too bad they ban most guns, but I liked the city very much.

I loathe Chicago. I was born there and lived there until I went to college.

It is simply the most racist place I have ever been on the face of the earth.

Whites hate Blacks.
Blacks hate Jews.
Mexicans hate Puerto Ricans.

Go to the Second City Cop blog so that you can see the confluence of bigotry, corruption and anti-gunnery as expressed in the words of Chicago cops themselves.

I can't like any place where paintings are "arrested" by the police, torture chambers are SOP, and city government is so corrupt it makes Tijuana look like Basel.

It's no coincidence that Chicago's gun laws are simultaneously repressive and applied ONLY to those without "clout".

I've been to Chicago and North Korea. At least you can say for the North Koreans that they don't know any better.

[Correia]

Well, this one was barely on topic to begin with, and sure isn't now.