My dog called the police on me!

[illinoisdeerhunter]

The thread, "Activists' home invaded by police. How would you act?" reminded me of the time, years ago, when my dog called the police on me.

It was 1991. My then wife and I and our two very young daughters, lived in a rented farm house 5 miles from a town of 400. My (then) wife had brought a dalmation home from the pound. It was winter and being a thin skinned dog, we kept the dog in the house that particularly cold evening.
sometime near midnight, I heard noises in the kitchen area of the house. I went, armed, to investigate only to find the D*#n dog had gotten into the trash and had it strewn across the kitchen floor.
The trash normally sat in a corner under a small corner shelf where the phone sat. the phone jack was behind the trash can.
I entered the kitchen to see the mess and grabbed the dog by the collar. I was shoving his nose in the trash, angrily cursing the dog. I kicked the dog out of the house and started to pick up the trash only to hear faint voices. The dog had knocked the phone off the shelf and somehow, the operator was on the line. I picked up the phone to break into a discussion between the operator and the local sheriff's office. The sheriff's office was sending a car out to investigate a domestic violence complaint that the operator reported!!!!!
I couldn't sleep and by that time my wife was up. We waited for the sheriff's deputies to arrive. I met them at the door. They wanted to come in. I refused them entry. They asked to see my wife. She came to the door and we explained what happened. Fortunately, I had an old college football buddy on the city force who happened to be on duty. I told them they could call him and he would vouge for me. The went to their car and returned a few minutes later to appologize for the inconvenience.

I wonder if this scenario would be treated the same way today?

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

DV laws are much more strict now in a good number of states, and a lot of departments who operate within these states have very specific policy in place which forbids the officers from not fully and completely investigating any and all reports of DV even third party reports. So simply telling an officer he or she cannot come inside on a DV call will certainly place you in risk of arrest for obstruction or hindering a lawful investigation.

Alot of states are must arrest states where the primary aggressor can be identified and simple misdemeanors where committed by themselves are just that, simple... are now aggravated misdemeanors or even carry felony level punishment and therefore states require a full and complete investigation.

DV has blown alot of laws way out of context and has created a whole new level of case law.

Simply telling a cop to go away on a suspected DV call will not cut it and will probably land you in cuffs facing a date with a judge.

And from my long experience with judges and DV they tend to look down on such attempt to obstruct any investigations of such calls.

 

[Dustinthewind]

Several years ago I had a job working nights. One day I awoke to the sound of my dog going nuts outside. I ran outside to find my dog plastered against the drivers side window of a sheriffs cruiser. I called the dog off and the deputy told me that he was going to shoot my dog, he had already peppersprayed him which only pi***d him off. The deputy started to get out of his car once I had the dog collared, bad idea! The dog pulled loose and sent the deputy scurring for the safety of his car once again threatining to shoot my dog. I am not in the best mood at this time so begins a heated debate between me and the deputy through the car window. Finally cooler heads prevail and I find out that he is responding to a 911 hang up. I tell him that I am the only one home at the time and that I was sleeping and I was not known for making calls in my sleep, he thinks he needs to come inside and investigate. I questioned his information about the phone number and address. Turns out that he had the wrong address. I know that I didn't handle this in the correct manner, but like they say hindsight is twenty twenty.

 

[sacp81170a]

DV laws are much more strict now in a good number of states, and a lot of departments who operate within these states have very specific policy in place which forbids the officers from not fully and completely investigating any and all reports of DV even third party reports. So simply telling an officer he or she cannot come inside on a DV call will certainly place you in risk of arrest for obstruction or hindering a lawful investigation.

Uhh, if I'm refused entry into a house and I force my way, I better be able to articulate a very clear and present danger of immediate harm or "hot pursuit" of a felon. The best you can do under the circumstances is request everyone to step outside, separate the parties and get their stories. If they refuse, then fine, you've gotta find some other PC. Talk to the neighbors and document, document, document. This kind of call would go into our system as a contact or a call for service unless there was clear evidence of DV. This is under Arkansas state law and court precedents, so it may vary in other states. IANAL and YMMV.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

In GA you can enter a residence to conduct an investigation of possible DV and detain or arrest as necessary.

In TN we can do the same and we have the authority to remove any and all weapons which were used, threatened to be used or suspected of being used by the offender and place them into property to be returned at a later date decided by the DA or the courts.

I have forced entry in both GA and TN to complete a response to a DV call and conduct the investigation and never once was my entry into a residence questioned by any DA, lawyer or judge.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

In 2002, John Gilmore attempted twice to board an airplane without showing government-issued identification and was denied boarding both times. Officials repeatedly refused to show him a law or regulation which required him to show ID, claiming it was sensitive security information, and he went to court.

Copies of the security directive in question have been leaked and have been available on the Internet for years. It does not require passengers to show identification, but does require that anyone who does not show identification go through secondary screening and requires special handling procedures for their checked baggage.

But Gilmore’s Supreme Court appeal wasn’t about being asked to show ID so much as being asked to follow a law without being able to know what the law says.

According to a statement by the Identity Project, which Gilmore heads and funds, “We must insist that our elected representatives control the TSA, and hold it accountable for its actions by, first, demanding that it make public this and any other laws it promulgates to bind the public.” — 27B Stroke 6

Gilmore calls secret law “an abomination” and says that it violates his right to due process. But now, with the refusal of the Supreme Court to hear this case, Americans can be subject to secret laws. Didn’t think that sort of thing could happen here? It can now.

Oh, and as the Ninth Circuit said in its decision, “the Constitution does not guarantee the right to travel by any particular form of transportation.” You don’t have the right to travel either, according to these people.

Funny you should bring this up in a DV thread, a few years ago when I was working as a Deputy Sheriff in GA a neighboring county responded to a DV call and had to destroy a dog while on scene. No arrest was made at the DV call and the owners threatened law suits and the media got involved.

Lawyers were contacted and it went no where because the officers had a lawful right to be where they were at the time the dog was destroyed, even though no arrest occurred from the original call.

 

[sacp81170a]

I have forced entry in both GA and TN to complete a response to a DV call and conduct the investigation and never once was my entry into a residence questioned by any DA, lawyer or judge.

That's why I only spoke about AR law and precedent. This whole scenario could very well change for us tomorrow, based on some cases that are currently in the system. We're constantly getting updates on case law that affects how we do the job as well as whatever black letter law the legislature sees fit to pass and the gov signs.

Not too long ago, we were told about a decision by the AR SC that allows dogs to be used to detect drugs randomly in a parking lot. Our dog handler immediately spoke up and said that that's not the way he had been trained, but our law professor (who's also a part timer on our force) confirmed it. Go figure.

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Yeah, if you want the definition of confusion just attend your states in-service legislative update each year. I wish they would make a law and just stick to it, would make life a hell of a lot more simple for everyone.

 

[TallPine]

One nice thing about the kops here in "Keystone Kounty" is that (in my experience) they are extremely reluctant to enter a residence, even when invited inside on a cold winter night.

But, heck - they probably couldn't even find my place after dark. Last time I had to guide them in on my VFD radio.

 

[GlowinPontiac]

if that happened these days the aspca would probably have shown up and arrested you for yelling at the dog.