HankB
Member
But if they find drugs or gunpowder residue or something else on the high fences or locked gates? Will they they use this as a pretext to get a warrant?
Police use doorknob swabs to detect guns, drugs in homes
- Thread starter Car Knocker
- Start date
- Status
Well I'm back to comment, as "madcowburger" and others have touched a nerve.
First though, I cannot imagine any officer would do this and even hope to have a prayer in the Omnibus hearing. This is illegal by anyones imagination and the officers involved need re-trained in consistutional law and best wishes in the well deserved civil suit.
Now that I am on record as denouncing and being disgusted by these action I will mention what is bothering me.
Police are always cited on this forum and others a having the "us Vs. them" mentality.
Quote from Madcowburger:
"I used to be one of the most pro-cop people alive. My Dad was a cop, and my grandfather was a cop, and I loved them. I actually had cop *friends*, or rather I *thought* I did. (I found out that most of them were just looking for something, *anything* to bust me for all along, and that they laughed at me and considered me a fool for being open and frank and friendly with them.)
No more, brother. Never again, as the Israelis say.
But they still don't get it. They still think the only people who don't like or trust them are natural-born crooks and dope addicts and "long-haired-hippy-type-pinko-fags."
They have no clue, no matter how many times they are told, that they have forfeited the support and friendship of the very people who were once their firmest supporters. It's a waste of breath and time trying to tell them. They're so convinced of their own righteousness and perfection and God-like infallibility that they can't even hear what you're saying.
Does anyone here think spewing filth like this might have something to do with cops negitive attitudes.
We are humans with feelings and trash like this does offend us.
I have also never refered to another person as a "long-haired-hippy-type-pinko-fags." I do not have God-like infallibility and I do listen to people. Except hateful rude people, when someone starts talking like this I tend to start wondering about the source and ignoring the messege.
Quote from Madcowburger:
As for this business of peeping in someone's windows and observing a "crime scene," who really knows what's a crime anymore? I know of a case where a woman, a single mother, was sitting in her living room watching TV and drinking a beer one night. A local cop peeped in through her (unfortunately not blacked out) window, and observed her drinking a beer. He just happened to know somehow that she owned a .38 revolver. It was locked in a drawer in anoother room. I mean she wasn't sitting there dry-firing it at the politicians on TV or anything.
But somehow the mere fact that he knew she *owned* (possessed) a gun, and had a kid (asleep in another room), and was "observed" drinking a beer was enough for the peeping policeman to charge her with some sort of wanton endangerment or child endangerment or something. I don't know if they did the "dynamic entry" thing with the rams and ski masks and concussion grenades or if they just knocked on the door or what. I don't believe she was actually jailed for long, but they did confiscate her .38 and they (or rather the social workers they brought in) took her child away.
Until I see a news report, police report, or court case I must assume this is total B.S. There have been versions of this story floating aroundfor a long time and its just not true. There would have been no PC for any arrest if this was the truth. people who hate police will always listen to any anti police story no matter how outlandish.
"I keep all my windows heavily draped, day and night. I reinforced my door as much as my limited means and renter status allowed. I don't answer knocks at the door unless I'm *expecting* someone I've *invited."
I am honestly sorry that you are so frightened, angry, and parinoid that you feel you have to live like this, in such fear of the world. Not everyone is bad and out to hurt you. Come out of there and I will take you to dinner and show you are cops are evil agents.
First though, I cannot imagine any officer would do this and even hope to have a prayer in the Omnibus hearing. This is illegal by anyones imagination and the officers involved need re-trained in consistutional law and best wishes in the well deserved civil suit.
Now that I am on record as denouncing and being disgusted by these action I will mention what is bothering me.
Police are always cited on this forum and others a having the "us Vs. them" mentality.
Quote from Madcowburger:
"I used to be one of the most pro-cop people alive. My Dad was a cop, and my grandfather was a cop, and I loved them. I actually had cop *friends*, or rather I *thought* I did. (I found out that most of them were just looking for something, *anything* to bust me for all along, and that they laughed at me and considered me a fool for being open and frank and friendly with them.)
No more, brother. Never again, as the Israelis say.
But they still don't get it. They still think the only people who don't like or trust them are natural-born crooks and dope addicts and "long-haired-hippy-type-pinko-fags."
They have no clue, no matter how many times they are told, that they have forfeited the support and friendship of the very people who were once their firmest supporters. It's a waste of breath and time trying to tell them. They're so convinced of their own righteousness and perfection and God-like infallibility that they can't even hear what you're saying.
Does anyone here think spewing filth like this might have something to do with cops negitive attitudes.
We are humans with feelings and trash like this does offend us.
I have also never refered to another person as a "long-haired-hippy-type-pinko-fags." I do not have God-like infallibility and I do listen to people. Except hateful rude people, when someone starts talking like this I tend to start wondering about the source and ignoring the messege.
Quote from Madcowburger:
As for this business of peeping in someone's windows and observing a "crime scene," who really knows what's a crime anymore? I know of a case where a woman, a single mother, was sitting in her living room watching TV and drinking a beer one night. A local cop peeped in through her (unfortunately not blacked out) window, and observed her drinking a beer. He just happened to know somehow that she owned a .38 revolver. It was locked in a drawer in anoother room. I mean she wasn't sitting there dry-firing it at the politicians on TV or anything.
But somehow the mere fact that he knew she *owned* (possessed) a gun, and had a kid (asleep in another room), and was "observed" drinking a beer was enough for the peeping policeman to charge her with some sort of wanton endangerment or child endangerment or something. I don't know if they did the "dynamic entry" thing with the rams and ski masks and concussion grenades or if they just knocked on the door or what. I don't believe she was actually jailed for long, but they did confiscate her .38 and they (or rather the social workers they brought in) took her child away.
Until I see a news report, police report, or court case I must assume this is total B.S. There have been versions of this story floating aroundfor a long time and its just not true. There would have been no PC for any arrest if this was the truth. people who hate police will always listen to any anti police story no matter how outlandish.
"I keep all my windows heavily draped, day and night. I reinforced my door as much as my limited means and renter status allowed. I don't answer knocks at the door unless I'm *expecting* someone I've *invited."
I am honestly sorry that you are so frightened, angry, and parinoid that you feel you have to live like this, in such fear of the world. Not everyone is bad and out to hurt you. Come out of there and I will take you to dinner and show you are cops are evil agents.
C96
Member
If you don't want the "public" or LEO's having access to your front door,
you will generally need to fence and gate your driveway and any other
"normal" access routes to your doors.
If you want real accurate info on trespass vs public access laws see a local
lawyer. One that is familiar with the law and the way it is handled in your
area.
Been there, done that, really didn't want the t-shirt.
allan
you will generally need to fence and gate your driveway and any other
"normal" access routes to your doors.
If you want real accurate info on trespass vs public access laws see a local
lawyer. One that is familiar with the law and the way it is handled in your
area.
Been there, done that, really didn't want the t-shirt.
allan
madcowburger
member
Oh. I hadn't thought of that.
Still, since the outside of the gate or wall *would* be pretty accessible to anyone passing by, I don't see how anything and everything wiped off on it could necessarily be linked to me.
How about my mailbox? The mailman handles all kinds of stuff from all over the place. There's no telling what traces of what are on his hands. How is that my fault?
I can tell you that I would not consider a warrant issued under such circumstances to be legitimate. I might not actively resist the invasion, but I wouldn't roll out the red carpet for it either. They'd have to work for it a little to get in there, and if they hurt themselves doing it, too bad. (I read about them charging some guy with additional crimes because he had his door reinforced or braced against kicking and ramming attacks. So they backed a pickup truck up to his living room picture window and jumped off the tailgate and crashed through the window. One of them cut himself on some broken glass, so they charged the guy extra for that. I guess he should have had some steel shutters too.)
MCB
Still, since the outside of the gate or wall *would* be pretty accessible to anyone passing by, I don't see how anything and everything wiped off on it could necessarily be linked to me.
How about my mailbox? The mailman handles all kinds of stuff from all over the place. There's no telling what traces of what are on his hands. How is that my fault?
I can tell you that I would not consider a warrant issued under such circumstances to be legitimate. I might not actively resist the invasion, but I wouldn't roll out the red carpet for it either. They'd have to work for it a little to get in there, and if they hurt themselves doing it, too bad. (I read about them charging some guy with additional crimes because he had his door reinforced or braced against kicking and ramming attacks. So they backed a pickup truck up to his living room picture window and jumped off the tailgate and crashed through the window. One of them cut himself on some broken glass, so they charged the guy extra for that. I guess he should have had some steel shutters too.)
MCB
madcowburger
member
How's it a threat to say I just wouldn't roll out the red carpet for some raid team beating on my door with sledgehammers? And that if they tripped on their bootlaces and hurt themselves, or shot each other in their own crossfire, or blew themselves up with their own door-breaching explosive charges, I wouldn't be overly sympathetic, since I wasn't doing anything wrong to begin with, and they should have left me alone in the first place.
I said I probably would NOT *actively* resist. I just don't see the "threat" in that. A threat is where you say "I'm going to do this or that." I just said I wasn't going to do anything.
As for my attitude, it did not arise spontaneously in a vacuum. I came by it honestly.
MCB
I said I probably would NOT *actively* resist. I just don't see the "threat" in that. A threat is where you say "I'm going to do this or that." I just said I wasn't going to do anything.
As for my attitude, it did not arise spontaneously in a vacuum. I came by it honestly.
MCB
It was TFL:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151710
Interesting to compare the two threads.
LawDog
artherd
member
Megh, look up "plain view" statutes. My non-profesional opinion is this swabing of doorknobs on private property does not qualify and will likely be tossed by any half-decent lawyer.
That doesn't mean it won't happen and cases won't be contested though.
That doesn't mean it won't happen and cases won't be contested though.
Agreed.
I think that they're right up against the limit of 'plain view', and probably (hopefully) this will get kicked back. Its questionable on a number of levels.
But, as usual, the main gist has been missed by some posters. I'll try to recap:
1. This does not seem to be a case of 'swab the knob', analyze the results, scream "My God, there's coke on that door!" and go get a warrant. Its more like they had existing evidence, and threw this in on top to add to the case. I admit this is an assumption, but it logically follows. I'm not sure you could get a warrant based upon JUST the results of sch a swab past a conscious magistrate. As others have said...Joe Crackhead jiggles my door, does this mean I have dope inside? No. But it sure is a nice bit of evidence to add to an already strong circumstantial case.
2. Going up to someone's door is not trespass. That means that a citizen off the street can be there without committing a trespass. If a citizen can do it, a cop can do it. If the cop can be there, he can gather what evidence is in plain view. The question is, does this meet 'plain view' criteria? I'm guessing that it probably won't.
As an aside, I also call BS on Madcowburger's anecdote. MCB...care to provide names, dates and times to support your story? I, too, have heard a variant of it before, often told by the same person who tells the story of the guy who strapped a JATO rocket to his car to see how fast he could go.
Mike
I think that they're right up against the limit of 'plain view', and probably (hopefully) this will get kicked back. Its questionable on a number of levels.
But, as usual, the main gist has been missed by some posters. I'll try to recap:
1. This does not seem to be a case of 'swab the knob', analyze the results, scream "My God, there's coke on that door!" and go get a warrant. Its more like they had existing evidence, and threw this in on top to add to the case. I admit this is an assumption, but it logically follows. I'm not sure you could get a warrant based upon JUST the results of sch a swab past a conscious magistrate. As others have said...Joe Crackhead jiggles my door, does this mean I have dope inside? No. But it sure is a nice bit of evidence to add to an already strong circumstantial case.
2. Going up to someone's door is not trespass. That means that a citizen off the street can be there without committing a trespass. If a citizen can do it, a cop can do it. If the cop can be there, he can gather what evidence is in plain view. The question is, does this meet 'plain view' criteria? I'm guessing that it probably won't.
As an aside, I also call BS on Madcowburger's anecdote. MCB...care to provide names, dates and times to support your story? I, too, have heard a variant of it before, often told by the same person who tells the story of the guy who strapped a JATO rocket to his car to see how fast he could go.
Mike
Walking up to someone's door is not trespass, unless there are signs stating otherwise, or a request has been made to the individual not to do so. Otherwise, if you ever walked up someone's sidewalk, stepped onto their porch and rang their bell, you should be in jail.
Mike
Mike
Well it will be interesting to see how this shakes out. The curtilage, the area immediately surrounding the main dwelling, is an area the courts have always recognized a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition is, that area which protects the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a person's house and the privacies of life. Keep in mind many factors affect exactly where the curtilage is on each property. Buildings detached from the main dwelling, ie shed or detached garage do not have a curtilage. Outside of the curtilage the 4th Amendment does not extend protection from the government. So forget all the trespass BS, the cops can walk on your yard. (I'm sure the tinhatters will scream over that now) However, searches within the curtilage are prohibited by the 4th Amendment.
Obviously going up to the door is likely to be an intrusion on the curtilage. So I would be curious how the agencies obtaining these samples are justifying the intrusion on the curtilage. Because this is in the federal court it will be interesting how far this case goes.
Obviously going up to the door is likely to be an intrusion on the curtilage. So I would be curious how the agencies obtaining these samples are justifying the intrusion on the curtilage. Because this is in the federal court it will be interesting how far this case goes.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Assuming this is a house in town, the use of the access-sidewalk up to one's front door is most likely not any case of trespass, even with signs. Trespass would apply if any visitor left the sidwalk and went onto the yard or around the house to other areas.
I'd bet that any court would hold that access to the entry way of one's home area is legit. Consider a walled-in house with a gate. Typically, the gate itself is inset into the property so a vehicle can get out of the traffic lane when the gate is closed. Touching the gate itself is not trespass, even though it's off public property.
I have no clue whether this may wind up being thought of, judicially, as somehow similar to rooting through garbage. Dunno. All in all, though, I'd be a lot happier if a warrant were needed to take "property" (whatever's taken by the swab). Sure, heroin's illegal, as an example of the possible finding. But, this illegal property is normally discovered during the exercise of a warrant to search.
I'm affected in this by reports from "back when" about how every large bill in every bank teller's drawer in Miami was contaminated by teensy amounts of cocaine dust. It's awful hard to prove you didn't do something illegal, in that circumstance. "Cash a check, go to jail." is not my idea of a good time.
Art
I'd bet that any court would hold that access to the entry way of one's home area is legit. Consider a walled-in house with a gate. Typically, the gate itself is inset into the property so a vehicle can get out of the traffic lane when the gate is closed. Touching the gate itself is not trespass, even though it's off public property.
I have no clue whether this may wind up being thought of, judicially, as somehow similar to rooting through garbage. Dunno. All in all, though, I'd be a lot happier if a warrant were needed to take "property" (whatever's taken by the swab). Sure, heroin's illegal, as an example of the possible finding. But, this illegal property is normally discovered during the exercise of a warrant to search.
I'm affected in this by reports from "back when" about how every large bill in every bank teller's drawer in Miami was contaminated by teensy amounts of cocaine dust. It's awful hard to prove you didn't do something illegal, in that circumstance. "Cash a check, go to jail." is not my idea of a good time.
Art
Actually the garbage is an excellent example of where the curtilage is important. The cops can't get into garbage that is still within the curtilage, but can get it when it's been abandoned at the curb, outside the curtilage.
BTW, I just reread the article linked and there was absolutely NO mention of gunpowder, or looking for guns. Funny how that was mentioned in the thread title, but not the article itself.
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Only if the party concerned has legit business being there. In the case of a peace officer, the subject type of fishing expedition is clearly not legit.
Even though simple trespass may not result in an arrest first time around due to the conditions of applicable laws (be they local or state), that does not change the nature of the act to begin with. I do know that in Texas for instance one only need to administer a verbal trespass notice, and if the person remains on the property, or returns, they are subject to arrest.
Only if the party concerned has legit business being there. In the case of a peace officer, the subject type of fishing expedition is clearly not legit.
Even though simple trespass may not result in an arrest first time around due to the conditions of applicable laws (be they local or state), that does not change the nature of the act to begin with. I do know that in Texas for instance one only need to administer a verbal trespass notice, and if the person remains on the property, or returns, they are subject to arrest.
Exactly LAK. Here a posted sign has the same legal effect as a verbal warning as well.
"Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-405 states that a person commits criminal trespass who "knowing he does not have the owner’s effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof." In that same statute, the word "enter" means "intrusion of the entire body." "
"Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-405 states that a person commits criminal trespass who "knowing he does not have the owner’s effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof." In that same statute, the word "enter" means "intrusion of the entire body." "
"Rooting through the garbage..." is quite possibly closer to the analysis than much of the other angles discussed here. Garbage is abandoned, so a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in it when placed outside the curtilage for collection. Is leaving your prints or residue effectively "abandoning" the molecules on the object touched? Is the curtilage really the key in determining whether collecting the swab is a search, or picking up abandoned material? Isn't the act of touching the outside doorknob sufficiently in public view that a person has no protected privacy act in the act?
Or -
Is it a "non-search?" Kind of like running a drug dog by a parked car; the dog detects the drug/bomb molecules and displays an alert. The alert is grounds for a search warrant. Is this just another means of collecting the molecules, albeit physical collection and analysis back in the lab, rather than in the dog's nose and brain?
A local LEO (I forget if he was the city chief or county Sheriff) announced he'd be having his troops run drug dogs through parking lots and up and down the streets. People who didn't like the idea threatened to mix some THC (seeds, oil, shake, ???) into a salve of some kind and smear it on parked car tires so the dogs would alert - possibly on upstanding citizens' cars - prompting embarassing searches and apologies. As I recall, he backed down on his plan. Maybe citizen outcry will affect this case also?
DCR
Or -
Is it a "non-search?" Kind of like running a drug dog by a parked car; the dog detects the drug/bomb molecules and displays an alert. The alert is grounds for a search warrant. Is this just another means of collecting the molecules, albeit physical collection and analysis back in the lab, rather than in the dog's nose and brain?
A local LEO (I forget if he was the city chief or county Sheriff) announced he'd be having his troops run drug dogs through parking lots and up and down the streets. People who didn't like the idea threatened to mix some THC (seeds, oil, shake, ???) into a salve of some kind and smear it on parked car tires so the dogs would alert - possibly on upstanding citizens' cars - prompting embarassing searches and apologies. As I recall, he backed down on his plan. Maybe citizen outcry will affect this case also?
DCR
Car Knocker
Member
DMF,
"Technique to detect drugs, guns violates rights, cases contend"
"Defense attorneys contend police using the mass spectrometry technology at a home must get a warrant first, by showing a judge other, independent evidence of illegal narcotics or firearms."
While the article I posted did not go into extensive detail in each case involved, it is strongly implied that gun-related substances were detected using this technology. If you can provide documentation to the contrary, I would certainly appreciate it. I have just now e-mailed the author of the article to see if she can provide clarification on this issue.
"Technique to detect drugs, guns violates rights, cases contend"
"Defense attorneys contend police using the mass spectrometry technology at a home must get a warrant first, by showing a judge other, independent evidence of illegal narcotics or firearms."
While the article I posted did not go into extensive detail in each case involved, it is strongly implied that gun-related substances were detected using this technology. If you can provide documentation to the contrary, I would certainly appreciate it. I have just now e-mailed the author of the article to see if she can provide clarification on this issue.
Car Knocker
Member
Update
Judge tosses detective's doorknob swab results
Ionscan machine: A cloth allegedly showed traces of meth, but he says the officer should've had a warrant before taking the sample
By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune
Most visitors just knock on the door. But when a detective approached Troy Levi Miller's home one day last year, he made no attempt to contact anyone inside.
Instead, he wiped a sterile cloth over the doorknob and left.
A test on the cloth allegedly revealed traces of methamphetamine, and those results helped a narcotics task force get a warrant to search the South Salt Lake house. But now, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball has thrown out the test as a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.
Kimball's ruling was the third one from a federal court in Utah - and only the fourth in the nation - involving the Ionscan 400B, a machine that analyzes microscopic particles picked up by wiping a surface with a sterile cloth. The cloth is placed in the machine, which gives an alert when certain substances, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, are found.
A doorknob is part of the private area of a residence and the officer should have gotten the search warrant before taking the swab, Kimball said.
"A visitor could not turn the doorknob without invading the privacy of the home's occupants - the only purpose for turning the doorknob is to gain access to the privacy of the home," the judge wrote in a June 30 decision. "A doorknob is not something that is transitory that could be borrowed, taken, or moved to another location. . . . It is a component part of the home."
However, Miller isn't off the hook. Kimball also decided there was enough other evidence, without the test results, to provide probable cause for a search warrant.
That leaves in place felony charges of possession of a controlled substance and aiding in the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine against the 34-year-old Miller.
Police argue that the presence of controlled substances shows that individuals who use or sell narcotics touched the tested area and is evidence of drug dealing in the residence.
The dispute over the technology centers on whether a doorknob is part of a home, a factor that helps determine whether police must get a search warrant before getting a swab. In addition, defense attorneys note that anyone can touch a doorknob, and argue that the mere presence of drug particles is no evidence of a crime.
The three Utah rulings and a 1999 decision out of the Virgin Islands have split on the issue.
In the Virgin Islands case, a trial judge threw out the analysis of a swab taken from a home's screen door, saying the search for marijuana residue violated the Fourth Amendment.
In Utah, U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart took a similar stand, ruling in August that the Ionscan test of an Ogden man's doorknob required a warrant. However, he upheld a search of Anthony Diviase Mora's home, saying other evidence provided probable cause.
Just a few months before, his colleague, Judge Tena Campbell, refused to throw out evidence against Dennis Daybell of Magna obtained through an Ionscan test.
She said the procedure reveals nothing about the inside of a house and compared use of the machine to having a trained dog sniff for drugs.
[email protected]
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2851035
Judge tosses detective's doorknob swab results
Ionscan machine: A cloth allegedly showed traces of meth, but he says the officer should've had a warrant before taking the sample
By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune
Most visitors just knock on the door. But when a detective approached Troy Levi Miller's home one day last year, he made no attempt to contact anyone inside.
Instead, he wiped a sterile cloth over the doorknob and left.
A test on the cloth allegedly revealed traces of methamphetamine, and those results helped a narcotics task force get a warrant to search the South Salt Lake house. But now, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball has thrown out the test as a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.
Kimball's ruling was the third one from a federal court in Utah - and only the fourth in the nation - involving the Ionscan 400B, a machine that analyzes microscopic particles picked up by wiping a surface with a sterile cloth. The cloth is placed in the machine, which gives an alert when certain substances, such as cocaine and methamphetamine, are found.
A doorknob is part of the private area of a residence and the officer should have gotten the search warrant before taking the swab, Kimball said.
"A visitor could not turn the doorknob without invading the privacy of the home's occupants - the only purpose for turning the doorknob is to gain access to the privacy of the home," the judge wrote in a June 30 decision. "A doorknob is not something that is transitory that could be borrowed, taken, or moved to another location. . . . It is a component part of the home."
However, Miller isn't off the hook. Kimball also decided there was enough other evidence, without the test results, to provide probable cause for a search warrant.
That leaves in place felony charges of possession of a controlled substance and aiding in the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine against the 34-year-old Miller.
Police argue that the presence of controlled substances shows that individuals who use or sell narcotics touched the tested area and is evidence of drug dealing in the residence.
The dispute over the technology centers on whether a doorknob is part of a home, a factor that helps determine whether police must get a search warrant before getting a swab. In addition, defense attorneys note that anyone can touch a doorknob, and argue that the mere presence of drug particles is no evidence of a crime.
The three Utah rulings and a 1999 decision out of the Virgin Islands have split on the issue.
In the Virgin Islands case, a trial judge threw out the analysis of a swab taken from a home's screen door, saying the search for marijuana residue violated the Fourth Amendment.
In Utah, U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart took a similar stand, ruling in August that the Ionscan test of an Ogden man's doorknob required a warrant. However, he upheld a search of Anthony Diviase Mora's home, saying other evidence provided probable cause.
Just a few months before, his colleague, Judge Tena Campbell, refused to throw out evidence against Dennis Daybell of Magna obtained through an Ionscan test.
She said the procedure reveals nothing about the inside of a house and compared use of the machine to having a trained dog sniff for drugs.
[email protected]
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2851035
Actually, if you know you don't have permission or likely wouldn't be able to obtain permission, you're trespassing. Essentially, there is a limited license to the public (in the absence of an express statement otherwise) allowing people to come onto your property for the purposes of contacting you in order to explain your reasons for being on the property. However, you cannot do anything on that property other than contacting the owner.
The cops trespassed. Period. The fact that they suspected the guy was dealing drugs actually makes it worse for them. They had probable cause but absent getting a warrant to secure the evidence, they did a warrantless search. This isn't looking through a window (which you can't do if you have to trespass to see in), or picking up sounds or IR emissions; this is entering onto the property for the express purpose of obtaining evidence.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Didn't the Supreme Court rule a while back that unless you have a security fence around your entire property, with signs saying "Keep Out," police can enter onto the property without a warrent?
Last edited:
Shield
Cops are just people and like most other cross sections of society, there are good ones and bad ones. So no-I don't think that all or even most cops are evil.
However, if it gets me a decent sit-down dinner, I'll say that all cops are evil.
Steak and lobster?
Biker
Cops are just people and like most other cross sections of society, there are good ones and bad ones. So no-I don't think that all or even most cops are evil.
However, if it gets me a decent sit-down dinner, I'll say that all cops are evil.
Steak and lobster?
Biker
The Real Hawkeye
member
DMF, I've read the Fourth Amendment, and I simply cannot find the "curtilage" language you mention. LOL. Actually, the Supreme Court, in this case, has actually expanded on the rights explicitely protected by the Fourth Amendment, so I have no complaints about including ONLY the curtilage, and not the back forty also. Interestingly, however, NY State has extended this protection against warrentless searches to the back forty as well, so long as it is surrounded by a fence of some sort, accompanied with No Tresspassing signs.
svtruth
Member
Fighting Back
Well if lots of people dusted their doorknobs with poppy seeds and gunpowder, the false positives should overwhelm thier system. If they then only swab in high probability neighborhoods- it is profiling. The city gummint could go bankrupt settling the law suits.
Well if lots of people dusted their doorknobs with poppy seeds and gunpowder, the false positives should overwhelm thier system. If they then only swab in high probability neighborhoods- it is profiling. The city gummint could go bankrupt settling the law suits.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
