9-1-1 HANG-UP CALLS: Exigent Circumstances and The 4th Amendment

[pftraining_in]

Several have ask in the past what authority the police have when they receive a 911 disconnect. This may help shed some light.

911 Hang Up Calls, Response, Exigent Circumstances and the 4th Amendment

 

[LEaSH]

Good to know.

Just the same, in Indiana, a faulty monitored home alarm system may send a 'silent alarm' code to authorities. And yes, they're coming in.
Ask me how I know. Or don't.

At least I wasn't shot to death.

 

[RichardR]

I haven't used a land-line in over a decade, so there will be no warrantless entries using the "911 hangup excuse" allowed on these premises.

 

[dross]

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[ghunter]

Ditto. On a side note, good topic. INGO'ers are smart.

 

[eldirector]

My Google-fu is weak this morning, but I distinctly remember some articles a while back about "ghost" phone calls. Basically, the 911 center was receiving calls from someone's number, but the homeowner never actually made the call. Problems on the line were mimicking the 911 call. I think it took a while for the phone company to finally locate the problem in their switch. They had to physically disconnect their phone service at the house, and wait for the next 911 call.

For the tin-foil crowd, this means Exigent Circumstances are pretty easy to fabricate. You can even have phone records....

For the rest of us, let's just hope the LEOs properly identify when they respond.

Thanks for the link, MK18!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Good to know.

Just the same, in Indiana, a faulty monitored home alarm system may send a 'silent alarm' code to authorities. And yes, they're coming in.
Ask me how I know. Or don't.

At least I wasn't shot to death.

The circumstances would be very important in examining this. For example, did they come up to your door, kick it in, then identify themselves, screaming for everyone to get on the ground or did they approach, knock, and wait for you to answer?

I know the cops where I used to work got LOTS of 911 hangup calls and they did go and at least talk to someone there in each case, or ensure the house was not unsecured. I gathered that most of the time, this meant they knocked on the door, talked to an adult, verified that it was indeed their home, and if appropriate and requested, gave the "Officer Not-Terribly-Friendly" talk to whichever child had been playing on the phone.

(That, BTW, is the "serious" mien that gets the child's attention while not making Mom have to wash any suddenly-and-unexpectedly soiled pants. )

The impression I took from it was that if the adult came out or allowed them in (either one) and made clear by action, manner of speech, etc., that nothing was wrong, entry was not required. Obviously, I do not have experience from either end of this to speak from, only impressions based on later conversations.

People on here always talk about not letting them in without a warrant/don't talk to the police/etc., but this is one time that I would recommend at least talking to them, and not as adversaries, especially considering that it's your hind end they're there to cover and SOMEone (or someTHING) called them or they wouldn't be there.

Speaking for myself, I think I'd probably go outside, speak civilly and pleasantly, be willing to show my ID proving it's my home, and assure them that their presence was appreciated and presently unnecessary, but would be requested if needed.



Bill

 

[Pocketman]

The court of appeals stated: We hold that the combination of a 911 hang call, an unanswered return call, and an open door with no response from within the residence is sufficient to satisfy the exigency requirement.

This is significant. It wasn't just a 911 hangup call. I wasn't there, but sounds like the officers handled it well. They were in uniform (inferred) and announced themselves. Had the occupant not been in a diminished mental state, probably would have ended much differently.

 

[kludge]

Back when I lived in Brownsburg, one of my kids dialed 911 and hung up. 911 called us back to ask if there was a problem. No. The were going to send a car any way. Not necessary I said. Procedure. OK.

Two of the potential culprits (I'm going to name my next kid "Not Me") and I went out to the front yard to "pull weeds" and a few minutes later met the officer at the sidewalk. We and Officer Friendly had a nice talk about 911, and he left in just a couple minutes. He didn't ask to enter the house. I think the fact that the kids looked healthy, were wearing clothes, weren't crying, and had no bruises or broken bones satisfied him.

 

[pftraining_in]

I haven't used a land-line in over a decade, so there will be no warrantless entries using the "911 hangup excuse" allowed on these premises.

911 Hangup Excuse

You might want to get rid of your cell phone too.

Your cell phone has a GPS that sends your location when you dial 911. Depending on the company, the GPS coordinates can be as accurate as a few feet, as in what area of the house the phone was in. If dispatch receives a 911 disconnect from a cell and the GPS shows a good location, law enforcement will respond. A few feet is more than accurate enough to tell which residence the call originated from even in urban areas.

In the past 911 cell calls were impossible to track, in this day and age with more people loosing their landlines we have to respond to a cell 911 the same as a landline.

By the way, even if you cancel your home phone service, you can still hook up a phone and dial 911. Your address and information will still show up. I highly recommend anyone who has canceled their landline to install a corded phone in case of a tower outage, power failure or inability to find a cell phone in an emergency.

 

[RichardR]

911 Hangup Excuse

You might want to get rid of your cell phone too.

Your cell phone has a GPS that sends your location when you dial 911. Depending on the company, the GPS coordinates can be as accurate as a few feet, as in what area of the house the phone was in. If dispatch receives a 911 disconnect from a cell and the GPS shows a good location, law enforcement will respond. A few feet is more than accurate enough to tell which residence the call originated from even in urban areas.

In the past 911 cell calls were impossible to track, in this day and age with more people loosing their landlines we have to respond to a cell 911 the same as a landline.

By the way, even if you cancel your home phone service, you can still hook up a phone and dial 911. Your address and information will still show up. I highly recommend anyone who has canceled their landline to install a corded phone in case of a tower outage, power failure or inability to find a cell phone in an emergency.

So essentially if an American citizen has in their possession or uses any sort of telecommunication device they are no-longer afforded their 4th Amendment protections?

Well I guess it's already happening during random traffic stops & DUI checkpoints, but only if those armed agents of the State are searching through that American citizen's pockets &/or vehicle for the officers safety.

Or if that American citizen buys a ticket in order to travel on a commercial airliner/train/subway, or if that American citizen is attending an urban elementary/middle/high school, or if there is a flood, wild fire, earth quake or some other disaster that requires agents of the State to go kicking in front doors to evacuate people in the disaster area, etc, etc.

Personally I think that our Constitutional protections have become "exceptioned/exemptioned" to the point of being nothing more than illusions at this point.

I don't know about you, but personally I would really like to have my Constitutional protections restored to their full & original intent, not constantly eroded & trampled for any & all reasons deemed "necessary" by those who are supposed to be charged with protecting them.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So essentially if an American citizen has in their possession or uses any sort of telecommunication device they are no-longer afforded their 4th Amendment protections?

Well I guess it's already happening during random traffic stops & DUI checkpoints, but only if those armed agents of the State are searching through that American citizen's pockets &/or vehicle for the officers safety.

Or if that American citizen buys a ticket in order to travel on a commercial airliner/train/subway, or if that American citizen is attending an urban elementary/middle/high school, or if there is a flood, wild fire, earth quake or some other disaster that requires agents of the State to go kicking in front doors to evacuate people in the disaster area, etc, etc.

Personally I think that our Constitutional protections have become "exceptioned/exemptioned" to the point of being nothing more than illusions at this point.

I don't know about you, but personally I would really like to have my Constitutional protections restored to their full & original intent, not constantly eroded & trampled for any & all reasons deemed "necessary" by those who are supposed to be charged with protecting them.

The same officers would have been hailed as incompetent had the man fallen into a diabetic coma and died just around the corner from their vision had they failed to enter. The 4th allows allows for reasonable search and seizure. Exigent circumstances are areasonable exception.

Would you have been happier if it were your child that was injuried and tried to dial 911 but passed out prior to extablishing contact? I would.

The court said there is no hard pat answer. It's what is reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.

 

[RichardR]

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt.

 

[MPD179]

The same officers would have been hailed as incompetent had the man fallen into a diabetic coma and died just around the corner from their vision had they failed to enter. The 4th allows allows for reasonable search and seizure. Exigent circumstances are areasonable exception.

Would you have been happier if it were your child that was injuried and tried to dial 911 but passed out prior to extablishing contact? I would.

The court said there is no hard pat answer. It's what is reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.

Many times I have answered these types of 911 hang-ups and couldn't get anyone to the door. I have always looked through the windows of the home attempting to see or hear someone inside. On several occasions, I have seen the elderly laying on the floor in distress or found other people that suffered a grabber. In the end, they didn't care about the damage to the door after I gave it the boot and were extremely pleased I took the extra steps instead of just leaving them to suffer.

 

[RichardR]

Ah yes, the tyranny of good intentions ...

 

[Bill of Rights]

So what would your preference be, Richard, if the person on the floor is you or someone important to you, unable to further summon the help you or they need? Should someone who responds to the call to the nationwide emergency number not enter because they have not been specifically invited in? Do you have somewhere, in writing, a hold-harmless statement indicating that you will not fault responders to that call for help for not entering and thus allowing the death or injury of the would-be patient? I'm not approaching this from a need angle in the sense of Pitt's wise thoughts, rather I am asking what your preference is and what you've done to ensure that your wishes are carried out.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[RichardR]

So what would your preference be, Richard, if the person on the floor is you or someone important to you, unable to further summon the help you or they need? Should someone who responds to the call to the nationwide emergency number not enter because they have not been specifically invited in? Do you have somewhere, in writing, a hold-harmless statement indicating that you will not fault responders to that call for help for not entering and thus allowing the death or injury of the would-be patient? I'm not approaching this from a need angle in the sense of Pitt's wise thoughts, rather I am asking what your preference is and what you've done to ensure that your wishes are carried out.

Blessings,
Bill

Like I previously mentioned, my personal preference is that I would like to see our Constitutional protections reinstated to their full & original intent.

If someone would like to voluntarily "wave" their Constitutional protections through some sort of registry or something in order to allow agents of the State warrant-less entry into their dwelling in the event of an emergency on an individual level that's fine with me.

But I do not like it when it is forced upon the entire citizenry "for our own good" if you get my drift.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Like I previously mentioned, my personal preference is that I would like to see our Constitutional protections reinstated to their full & original intent.

If someone would like to voluntarily "wave" their Constitutional protections through some sort of registry or something in order to allow agents of the State warrant-less entry into their dwelling in the event of an emergency on an individual level that's fine with me.

But I do not like it when it is forced upon the entire citizenry "for our own good" if you get my drift.

It seems you're avoiding my question. To be a little more clear, what I'm asking is what you, personally, want done for you and your family in the event that you aren't able to complete a call for help? Specifically, do you want someone to come into your house or leave you there to possibly die? If you want people to come in to come to your aid, what have you, personally, done to ensure that that happens (or if you don't want help, what have you done to ensure no one enters) when that time comes?

It's easy to say what generally should happen, and from my libertarian perspective, I agree that individual rights should be the first consideration. I have to consider also, though, the litigious society we live in, but that's of smaller concern to me than the fact that our Founders listed first in the Declaration of Independence the right to life, THEN liberty, and THEN the right to the pursuit of happiness. As life was listed first, I am forced to consider that right paramount and act to preserve life. In addition, medically speaking, we are taught to preserve life over limb and limb over function. With life as the first principle, I sleep well even when I have to violate someone's property rights if the reason for doing so is to save their life or preserve their health. I have never done so otherwise. While there is the principle of "implied consent" for those who are not conscious or competent to give actual consent (a legal concept in which we take it as a given that a reasonable, prudent person would want efforts made to preserve their life) does get into a grey area, I don't see another option available.

So... the questions I'm asking are above, underlined and highlighted in blue. I'm interested to see your responses.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[RichardR]

I wasn't avoiding your question, in fact, I thought I had already answered it, I am willing to expand a bit on an my answer though.

I would like to see the 4th Amendment (along with the rest of our Constitutional protections) to be fully restored to their full & original intent.

If some people (even my own loved ones) who could have otherwise been saved die as a result of that restoration of our Constitutional protections? that would be a shame but freedom isn't free & is almost always paid for in blood.

The argument that these exigent circumstances "saves lives" is the same sort of argument used by gun banners to create gun-free zones & otherwise restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.

In fact the whole "save lives" argument is often used to push through every thing from the warrant-less wiretapping of the Patriot Act to smoking bans & seat-belt laws.

It "saves lives" is the nanny State's motto.

 

[Pocketman]

Many times I have answered these types of 911 hang-ups and couldn't get anyone to the door. I have always looked through the windows of the home attempting to see or hear someone inside. On several occasions, I have seen the elderly laying on the floor in distress or found other people that suffered a grabber. In the end, they didn't care about the damage to the door after I gave it the boot and were extremely pleased I took the extra steps instead of just leaving them to suffer.

Ditto! ("grabber" - Used it, but haven't heard that term in awhile )

The 4th Amendment protects us from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The right was written in response to fishing expeditions that the British practiced. In the situations described in this thread, the police were not looking for evidence. The sole purpose was to protect those who may be in need. The prime directive of public safety.

The Supreme Court, who's authority is also provided for in the Constitution, has addressed this issue more than once. Therefore, the Constitution is being followed, even though some may choose to disagree with the interpretation.