[jdavionic]

Funny, I found this article on LegalZoom.com. It touches on what I was getting at.
http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your

According to the article, there are 4 circumstances where no warrant is required:
1. Consent - the person in control of the property grants consent to search the premises.

2. Plain view - this is why I was mentioning the possibility that perhaps they could see evidence of the crime.

3. Search incident to arrest - not sure this one applies here. The police arrived at the home to investigate a crime. At least according to the lawsuit, they did not arrive to arrest Mr. Smith (although that was the result).

4. Exigent circumstances - where evidence could be destroyed or public danger could be a concern if they do not immediately enter. I don't see this being applicable here.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

No sir, you're incorrect. I'm "fishing" to see if there are conditions / situations where police can enter a person's home without a warrant if a person has acted as I outlined. For example, a traffic stop and officers see drugs in the vehicle...they can and do make an arrest. I don't know if some states have a similar method of handling a similar situation like the one that Mr. Smith was involved. In other words, IF police confirm that a person is in the home that police are seeking for a crime and the suspect has opened the door, can the police give chase into the home? IF police see stolen property and the chief suspect in a home and the suspect opens the door and then tries to flee, can the police enter the home in pursuit?

If the answers are "yes", then this is a possible explanation and another fact to consider when assessing whether they acted appropriately. If the answers are "no, you must have warrant", then I would not see any way where the police acted appropriately with respect to entering the home.

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Funny, I found this article on LegalZoom.com. It touches on what I was getting at.
http://www.legalzoom.com/everyday-law/home-leisure/can-police-search-your

According to the article, there are 4 circumstances where no warrant is required:
1. Consent - the person in control of the property grants consent to search the premises.

2. Plain view - this is why I was mentioning the possibility that perhaps they could see evidence of the crime.

3. Search incident to arrest - not sure this one applies here. The police arrived at the home to investigate a crime. At least according to the lawsuit, they did not arrive to arrest Mr. Smith (although that was the result).

4. Exigent circumstances - where evidence could be destroyed or public danger could be a concern if they do not immediately enter. I don't see this being applicable here.

You've answered your own question.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by RussP

You've answered your own question.

Yes.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[RussP]

Good!!

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by RussP

Good!!

Yes it is. Perhaps this is common knowledge for many people, but it was news to me. I had a suspicion, which I eluded to earlier. But I didn't know for certain.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[Mister_Beefy]

Originally Posted by Bren

If you think that's a "straw man argument" you need to study what a straw man argument is a little more.

I know that's not a straw man argument.

I was anticipating the inevitable straw man argument claim that I always receive, but is never substantiated.

Originally Posted by Bren

A conclusion without a fact basis is pretty much the definition of "untrue".

page 195 of bren's "internet forum rule book"?

Originally Posted by Bren

I CLEARLY did not say it doesn't exist - I even discussed when it does exist. That none of my clients have ever lost in court or been found to have engaged in misconduct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I know cops who have engaged in misconduct, gone to prison, been fired, etc.

ah, so you agree with me.

very good.

Originally Posted by RussP

He agreed with you...that's weak?

had he agreed with me, he would have said something like "you are correct, police misconduct happens every day"

then possibly added something like

"and we do everything we can to combat it and bring those perpetrators to justice."

but no, he said

"What makes what you said untrue is that you have no direct knowledge of police and their conduct, so you have no basis for your statement."

Originally Posted by RussP

And here comes your inflammatory trolling statement.To refute Bren's contention about your knowledge, please answer these questions:

truth you disagree with turns into trolling with a wave of your moderator wand.

Originally Posted by RussP

Can you cite 365 cases of misconduct committed over 365 consecutive days that were successfully prosecuted? If yes, please do so.

heh, so if I say anything on an internet forum, I have to prove it with verifiable accounts from a court of record.

got it.

[Kingarthurhk]

Mr. Beefy, you are to law enforcement as Norske is to religion.

It might be easier if you just developed a macro to copy paste that LEO's are bad repeatedly, and never even have to enjoin the topic.

It is about all you add to such topics anyway.

[Mister_Beefy]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

Mr. Beefy, you are to law enforcement as Norske is to religion.

It might be easier if you just developed a macro to copy paste that LEO's are bad repeatedly, and never even have to enjoin the topic.

It is about all you add to such topics anyway.

oh really?

that's the most pertinint thing you have to say, eh?

sounds so familiar.......

oh yeah, I remember!

Originally Posted by TheeBadOne

if you cannot attack the argument, attack the poster. The classic sign of a defeated argument.

[OldCurlyWolf]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Yes it is. Perhaps this is common knowledge for many people, but it was news to me. I had a suspicion, which I eluded to earlier. But I didn't know for certain.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Not to be the grammar police but this one tickled my funny bone.

How did you escape your suspicion??

I believe the actual word you wanted was the word "Alluded", not "Eluded".

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf

Not to be the grammar police but this one tickled my funny bone.

How did you escape your suspicion??

I believe the actual word you wanted was the word "Alluded", not "Eluded".

Okay, it was not easy. That is funny. Busted.