Civil Liberties vs. Probable Cause

[chefTENGU]

what is your stance on civil rights in regards to police searching a house?
what do you mean, exactly?
I mean,
the people arguing that the guys were "surrendering their civil rights" by allowing the police entry are full of shit
probable cause allows cops to enter
and they had reason to believe someone was being harmed and was in serious danger
because of a scream that they did not hear themselves?
Um... if someone is being raped or murdered, one scream might be all they can get out before being gagged.
it's too flexible. i doubt somebody wants a police search every time their wife has an orgasm during sex, and yes, it's possible a neighbor wouldnt know the difference
or a woman saw a spider
they wouldn't do that
after the first time that happened, they wouldn't be so eager to rush out after getting a similar report
it shouldn't happen to begin with. my wife has made plenty of sounds (like if i chase her to tickle her or something) that were screams. in can happen in almost any household with a woman present
its overly presumptuous and not solid ground to search a house for every time any house has a scream from a woman
it's not the cops' fault someone thought a violent crime was being committed in that apartment
they had probable cause
and that's what makes the difference between life and death in these cases
it's not unreasonable or preposterous. It's necessary if you actually want to have a hope of saving someone.
the problem with a scream is that there's so many ways a scream can be innocent it's actually much much more likely that it's innocent than violent, which is why i feel its not solid enough
its like saying "i see a steak knife on the table, you may have it ready to kill somebody"
no, it's not. It'd be like seeing someone raising that knife in a threatening manner and assuming they're using it to kill, but when the cops arrive it turns out they were rehearsing a play or something
no, because in most cases a scream isn't related to being killed or raped, just like in most cases a steak knife is for eating.
it gives no more indication
well, to me, it sounds like you should be yelling at whoever reported the crime in the first place
not at the police for doing their job
that's my point - their "job" is way too lenient with probable cause. i know the way it is, i just think something is wrong with it
It's really just common sense.
If it sounds like someone is being hurt, do you seriously believe that if the cops ask for entry and the person says "no thank you, no rape here. Nope." they should just take them at their word?
yes, unless they have further reason to believe than being TOLD "we heard a suspicious sound"
its flimsy
That's ALL they have to go on. What are they supposed to do? "All reports of criminal activity must be submitted with evidence of said activity occurring. After we evaluate that evidence, police will be deployed. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery."
it still doesn't give them the right to enter and search a house. we're entitled to some privacy, after all. just because my wife happens to be louder, i should be considered suspicious?
if they heard pounding or other noises while talking to the person at the door, then i'd buy it
or muffled helps
there are a lot of things that can and logically WOULD alert them to danger while talking to the person at the door
if there had been a rape, then a subsequent murder, you can't rely on stuff like that
they had probable cause. It's there to protect people
they could spot blood or a weapon or any number of things. if there really WAS a problem, there is a high chance they'd have more to go on
and if the person didn't answer the door at all, that's also reason to suspect
i just dont feel a scream alone is enough

Look, I love privacy. But I don't think the police overstepped their bounds in the example provided by Seeg in the Random Talkfest. It'd be one thing if they assumed someone MUST have been raped, and arrested all three guys, but they didn't.

Someone reported what sounded like rape to them, they called in, the police investigated, they were admitted, conducted their investigation, and left because nothing had actually happened.

Please tell me I'm not insane for thinking a potentially life-threatening situation unfolding is probable cause for allowing the police entry into someone's home.

[Bloodcinder]

The case you're talking about is irrelevant. The police didn't enter unwanted. They were allowed in by the resident. So you can't justify your position on police searches in general by citing the fact that everything turned out okay in this case.

As for probable cause, Hunter has it right: if the police get to the door and there's obviously been a struggle of some sort or multiple neighbors have attested to screams or something that's actually sufficient rather than "I think I heard a scream" coming from a private residence, then the police have the right to enter. But it has to be probable... hence the word probable.

[chefTENGU]

Ok, you're right. In this case, the whole thing is moot because:

1. The police asked to be let in and gave their reason why.
2. The people involved allowed them entry freely.

Since there really isn't anything for anyone to get mad about here, it kind of makes me wonder why the discussion on the other site spiraled so far out of control. The police didn't try to force the issue, the residents didn't try to resist.

Now that I've thought more about it, it seems to me that the police knew they didn't have probable cause in this case, or that things were most likely all right, which is why events evolved the way they did. If there was a clear indication of something bad going down, then they would likely have been more cautious, or have taken a different attitude from the beginning (e.g., arriving with sirens blaring).

So, I suppose what it all boils down to is that people like me are more likely to cooperate with police to an unnecessary degree in situations like the above, in which case, who cares if my civil liberties get violated, since I was the one who permitted the breach in the first place?

[Bloodcinder]

Which would mean that your civil liberties weren't being violated, ironically.

Me... No, I'd not let the police enter my home for such a reason as a voice complaint.

[Seegtease]

At the link I provided for the example, everyone knows he ALLOWED them to enter. The argument was that he shouldn't have, or that he certainly didn't have to.

To broaden the topic a little...

In general, if all they have to go on is a scream, they should not be able to enter on probable cause. Especially if they only heard reports of a scream.

The thing is, if there actually IS a problem, there is a high chance that they will have further evidence such as:

1) Nobody answers the door.
or if somebody DOES answer the door
2) Sounds heard in the background that resemble a struggle to escape
3) Visible blood
4) Visible weapon
5) Unusual behavior by the person who answered, like denying the existence of anybody else in the residence when the sound clearly came from there.

In most of those examples, the danger breaks the threshold of the right for privacy.

On the sound alone, that doesn't warrant a search. There's too many safe reasons a woman could be screaming.

As for the argument, "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about letting them in"... I don't like it. The fact that you have nothing to hide is MORE reason why they SHOULDN'T enter and search your house. Allowing them to enter freely more often is just a step in the wrong direction.

[Killer_Man_]

1) Nobody answers the door.
or if somebody DOES answer the door
2) Sounds heard in the background that resemble a struggle to escape
3) Visible blood
4) Visible weapon
5) Unusual behavior by the person who answered, like denying the existence of anybody else in the residence when the sound clearly came from there.

1) Understandable.

2) You'd be surprise what cuffs or gags can do. Besides knocking someone out always helps.

3/4) I doubt it.

5) Understable.


Look, there isn't anything wrong with cops entering even with just a 'scream.'

I'd rather have cops enter on me while having sex or doing something than to ignore a scream while people are getting hurt or my 'future wife' being' raped.

FFS I've seen neighbors kick down doors to screams to help people.

[Z]

Ok, you're right. In this case, the whole thing is moot because:

1. The police asked to be let in and gave their reason why.
2. The people involved allowed them entry freely.

According to the story, they only gave a reason why after the search.

Today, cops showed up at my apartment demanding to look inside. Satisfied with the search, they told me they had received a noise complaint. More specifically, hearing screams someone believed a girl was getting raped. I had two friends over and we had been wrestling. The three of us are male. FML

That's what I have a problem with. If you want in my house because you heard there might be a possible rape, I'll be more than happy to clear my name but don't barge into my house and not expect to be met with resistance if you don't give me a reason or a warrant.

[Arainach]

I'm not sure what the debate here is. If you allow the cops to enter your property, you're authorizing a search. That's par for the course. If you don't want them in, tell them no (and watch them get a warrant and declare you a suspect, but that comes with the territory)

[Seegtease]

I kinda wish chef had posted this thread in a more general sense, rather than focusing on the FML post in question. Yes, in this example, he did give them permission. I'm still interested in the topic as a whole.

The question is: should he HAVE to let them in if he didn't want to? Is a scream enough?

In your opinion, what is the limit where possible danger breaks the right to privacy?

According to the story, they only gave a reason why after the search.

I noticed this too. In fact, I also notice that they demanded to look inside. It doesn't even say he allowed them, but perhaps he felt intimidated or obligated as if he would be arrested if he said no. It's quite possible for somebody to have that fear and just forfeit their rights as a result.

And it's pretty lame that they didn't tell him why until afterward.

[Arainach]

Unless there's a warrant, you NEVER have to let them in. Personally, I wouldn't have let them in unless they gave some sort of believable reason.

[Bloodcinder]

I would never let the police in unless...

1) I called the police because I need them.

2) They have a warrant to enter.

3) I'm aware of the situation and know that letting them in is the greater good.

[deathofcheese]

If cops show up to your house and ask to come inside to do a search, regardless of the reason they tell you, you are well within your rights to refuse that. If you refuse, they can't press it further unless they do see blood or a weapon or hear a victim or sounds of a struggle (I'm speculating with this sentence; I could very well be wrong). However, if they are refused and they feel that something genuine is going on, they can hold you up (not detain, not arrest, just keep you busy) until they can get a warrant and then they can come in without worry. If they got a warrant, then that's due process of law and your right to privacy doesn't prevent that. Even if you had nothing to hide, once they've gotten a warrant, they're no longer violating your right to privacy unless they're looking for something that's not there (i.e. they suspect you and will find evidence against, regardless of it exists or not (this probably happens most often in TV shows or movies, but I would bet that it's happened in real life before)). If you feel that you're being hassled, then you are well within your right to lodge complaints.

[Seegtease]

Unless there's a warrant, you NEVER have to let them in. Personally, I wouldn't have let them in unless they gave some sort of believable reason.

Hypothetically speaking... if they were told of a scream, came, they were told no, person closed the door, the police waited by the door a little longer, and suddenly heard, "No! STOP NO!!!!" or something of the such...

Could/Should they break in the house?

[Killer_Man_]

I would certainly think so Zeit.

[Z]

The best way to refuse a search is, when you answer the door and see policemen on the other side, you should say "OH GAWD, IT'S THE COPS! CHEESE IT!" then slam the door shut.

[Bloodcinder]

Hypothetically speaking... if they were told of a scream, came, they were told no, person closed the door, the police waited by the door a little longer, and suddenly heard, "No! STOP NO!!!!" or something of the such...

Could/Should they break in the house?
Yes. Then it becomes probable that something's wrong, 'cause I said so.

[chefTENGU]

Does anyone know for certain what does constitute probable cause, or to put it another way, something that allows the police to enter even if they don't have a search warrant? Or is a warrant an absolute necessity?

I'm curious now. Is there an objective system in place, or is it left up to someone's best judgment? Do different states have different laws regarding this?

I'd rather have cops enter on me while having sex or doing something than to ignore a scream while people are getting hurt or my 'future wife' being' raped.
This actually reminds me of the case that got all those sodomy laws declared unconstitutional: a homophobic neighbor called the cops on his gay next-door neighbors because they were having sex in the privacy of their own home. A few minutes later, the police busted in and caught them in the act (which, to Jim David, proves that it was great sex; they didn't stop even when people were breaking in, heh).

So, I'm really curious about why the police were permitted entry in this case, but wouldn't be in the case Seeg posted.

[Jasmin Jaquine]

It's not a solid yes or no definition. Some items (screaming, yelling for help, seeing weapons) and things of that nature are a little more cut and dry, but some things (odors, certain actions) are based on experience.

For those that don't know me, I tend to say out of these conversations as my Dad was a Police Lieutenant (Yay for Retirement!), but because he had 20 years experience, certain actions or gaseous odors would give him probably cause where a young, fresh-out-of-academy cop might not have.

---------- Post added at 15:53 ---------- Previous post was at 15:52 ----------

In Domestic situations if there is a call in or something reporting a domestic abuse case, the police have full rights to physically view ever person in the house/inn/whatever to verify that everyone is safe and nothing is being covered up.

[Bloodcinder]

I'm pretty sure it's a case of ends-justify-means. They wait for enough probable cause that if they are wrong and there is no problem they can win in court against charges of police misconduct.

[Seegtease]

Yes. Then it becomes probable that something's wrong, 'cause I said so.

I agree.

My main question is: where do you guys draw the line, specifically? Not regarding what actually IS, what is the limit you all have on when they should be able to enter without permission? Can you make an example to illustrate your limit?

[Bloodcinder]

I would never let the police in unless...

1) I called the police because I need them.

2) They have a warrant to enter.

3) I'm aware of the situation and know that letting them in is the greater good.

[Seegtease]

Yes, I know yours, just not those who haven't said so.

[Killer_Man_]

I always said what I had to.

If cops barge in because of a 'scream' or something that would seem silly. I'd show them around the house and tell them anything they needed to know.

Especially since I know I have done nothing illegal.

[Seegtease]

The thing is, if you're the only suspect, they don't "need" to know anything other than "everything is okay".

If they said, "There is a murderer hiding in one of these houses and we are trying to check them all," or something of the like, then I'd help them out. But if I'm the target and I know I'm innocent, they don't "need" to look in my house.

[Killer_Man_]

They don't 'need' to but they will get inside even with a warrent. So why cast more suspicion(sp?) on you by refusing?

[Seegtease]

Not wanting a police officer to search your house doesn't make you suspicious. It means you value your right to privacy.

[Gareth]

An Officer must be given permission to enter except under these conditions:

RCW 10.31.040: Officer may break and enter if making an arrest in criminal actions when he is refused entrance after he has notified the person(s) of their office and intent. They then may break any outer or inner door, including windows and such.

This is worded a bit differently, but it's the same idea. It's Unlawful for an officer to enter without a warrant or permission unless they basically can make an arrest right there.

There is a law in washington that an officer doesn't need a warrant to arrest if a felony has been committed, or he has probable cause of one being committed.
The Misdemeanor presence rule says that unless they are there they cannot make an arrest if a misdemeanor has not been committed in their presence (This rule has exceptions, such as Assault, DV, Etc)

So Basically, Unless they can't go in and make an arrest based on probable cause, then they can't enter without permission. But they could later get a search warrant and go inside. In extreme conditions, It's obvious that if an officer heard screams, he would need to determine if they were the "probable cause".

I could get really technical about it, but I already pulled out my rcw book and don't feel like reading more of it z.z

[deathofcheese]

Is there something about probable cause or is it left up to the discretion of the police officer? Or is what you just quoted the guidelines used for probable cause?

[Killer_Man_]

Not wanting a police officer to search your house doesn't make you suspicious. It means you value your right to privacy.


Not really, most cops will think, "Are they hiding something?"

I mean Ary already said something along those lines.

[Seegtease]

I'm sure by now the police have come to expect some people simply standing up for their rights.

[Arainach]

Ah, I love the aura of naive innocence in the morning.

The only thing they "expect" is an excuse to do whatever they want and to charge anyone who gets in their way, whether they have the right or not, with a crime (assaulting an officer and resisting arrest are perennial favorites).

[Seegtease]

Yes, but I'm sure they'd encountered plenty of people who just didn't want to let them in because they had no right to. Or maybe I'd be surprised at how few people actually care about their rights.

[chefTENGU]

Personally, I just feel like it's no big deal, especially since I haven't done anything the police would care about.

[Seegtease]

Me either, which is why they don't need to search my house unless somebody else's safety is at sake and I'm causing delays by doing so.

[Killer_Man_]

Zeit, it isn't about 'privacy' or your 'right'. It's just some of us don't give a damn because if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have NOTHING TO HIDE.

I was always grown up with that implanted in my head. My parents have taught me that if you are pulled over and the police want to search your car. Then let them, because if you are hiding nothing or doing nothing wrong. Then they will find -nothing.-

Either that or you can sit in your car and wait an hour or so untill they get their search warrant.

Either way if they really want to get into something you own, they will.

[Seegtease]

Zeit, it isn't about 'privacy' or your 'right'. It's just some of us don't give a damn because if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have NOTHING TO HIDE.

I hate this reasoning. The fact that I am not doing anything wrong is further reason why I DON'T need to let them in.

[Killer_Man_]

You hate the reasoning but it's the truth.

[Gio Takahashi]

Also keep in mind that we have the right to private property.

[deathofcheese]

*cough*Fourth Amendment*cough*

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_%28law%29) 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.

[Killer_Man_]

Like that ever stop a cop from just throwing a random things together. Even if they fail to 'find' anything and find you commiting a felony such as rape or murder. Do you think they won't stop you? Depending on the state law.

I'm sure they could randomly bind shit together to get you.

I don't know, perhaps I'm just weird but I never had a problem. I know my one friend refused to get out of his car one time and I was inside. I said fuck you to my friend and got out. I told the cop you can search me and all my belongings. Which was a duffel bag and a few other things.

I told him where we were going and I told him I don't know why he was speeding to get up north to go camping with friends.

Then we sat there for a half a hour or maybe a hour because the cop had thought we had been drinking. He could smell booze in the car. Well his Dad had borrowed the car so who knwos what he may have done in there.

I took a breathlizer and he refused till the 'warrent' came in. We both came out clean and it would have been a lot 'faster' if people wouldn't fricken refuse.

[Arainach]

Zeit, it isn't about 'privacy' or your 'right'. It's just some of us don't give a damn because if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have NOTHING TO HIDE.But....that's....nearly an exact definition of privacy. Even if you have nothing to hide, you still have a right not to expose everything to the public (or the police). It's absolutely 100% about privacy.

[Killer_Man_]

But....that's....nearly an exact definition of privacy. Even if you have nothing to hide, you still have a right not to expose everything to the public (or the police). It's absolutely 100% about privacy.

I'm not sure what the debate here is. If you allow the cops to enter your property, you're authorizing a search. That's par for the course. If you don't want them in, tell them no (and watch them get a warrant and declare you a suspect, but that comes with the territory)Why drag something out when you can clear your name? Perhaps I'm just being naive.

[Arainach]

Because privacy itself is of enormous value.

[deathofcheese]

Unless police officers are sure beyond a doubt that you're Up To Something, then they probably don't want to drag the matter out any more than you do. If clearing your name when you "have nothing to hide" is more important to you than your guaranteed right to privacy, then the Fourth Amendment is wasted on you.

In some cases, yes, allowing the police to search you might be a better idea than turning them away, citing your right to privacy. Like, say, you really did look suspicious because there were signs of a struggle or when you answered the door the police heard/smelled/saw something that set warning flags off in their head. However, this, in all likelihood, will be extremely rare.

[Killer_Man_]

Unless police officers are sure beyond a doubt that you're Up To Something, then they probably don't want to drag the matter out any more than you do. If clearing your name when you "have nothing to hide" is more important to you than your guaranteed right to privacy, then the Fourth Amendment is wasted on you.

Who said there aren't situations were I would refuse? I am just stating the fact that at times it's best to just let them clear you and let htem be on their way.

[Drifter]

"Choose your battles wisely"

While I'm all about privacy, if an officer is polite and explains the reason they want to search, I'd let them do a search. Even if I don't 100% agree with it. It's all about choosing your battles, and a majority of the time, I'd rather not waste my time AND his time by making it a long drawn out privacy ordeal. My time is more valuable that making a point to ONE officer who is trying to do his/her job (now if the cop is just trying to make my life miserable, that's a different story. It's situational, as it should be). Doing that isn't going to help me, change anything, and will potentially endanger other people by wasting the officer's time. Be smart about the stands you make.

Contrary to what many people seem to think, most cops are not power hungry douchebags. Are them some? Of course. They are the ones that make the news sadly. You don't hear about all lof the awesome police officers out there. Most of the time, an officer is just trying to do their job and doesn't want to bother you unless he/she really has to.

[chefTENGU]

Contrary to what many people seem to think, most cops are not power hungry douchebags. Are them some? Of course. They are the ones that make the news sadly. You don't hear about all lof the awesome police officers out there. Most of the time, an officer is just trying to do their job and doesn't want to bother you unless he/she really has to.
Thank you. I'm sick of people acting like all cops want to do is lock people up and harass ordinary people.

[Killer_Man_]

I never said they are? I am just saying I'm the naive one who would do it just for them to get the hell out just incase something is truely wrong.

[chefTENGU]

I wasn't accusing you or anyone else in particular of saying that. It just seems to me that a lot of people out there are complete bastards to cops.

Jon Stewart had something in his stand-up about it, how he had participated in the Rodney King protest way back after the verdict had been read at the police officers' trial. Everyone was pissed, in the streets shouting "Fuck the police! Fuck the police!"

Then the riots started. And it quickly turned into panic, with people saying, "Oh my God! Where the fuck are the police!?"