A hard question for LEOs

[ghunter]

About the OP:

I don't want more laws to enforce. I can barely keep track of the ones I have. I would actually like to see some laws repealed.

Drugs? Legalize them. If a person is on any mind altering chemical and drives a car or acts like a butt hole in public, then I will happily lock him up. Otherwise, I don't want to do the paperwork.

Guns? There shouldn't be a license to carry a handgun. If, during my run, I encounter a gun, all I care to hear is if the guy is a felon, confirmed head case, illegal alien, etc. If you are eligible to own a gun, then carry one.

There are some orders that I will not obey, and there are some laws that I will not enforce. I'm fortunate to live in a state where the laws have not gone completely stuck on stupid, like CA, NY, and the usual suspects.

Just random thoughts.

 

[Brian 45]

I agree to a point with ghunter, all laws should have a repeal and review date, say about every 10 years.
Drugs legal, no way to control them until they hurt or kill someone!
Guns , if everyone who could carry them did then we would be much safer out there.
The last one is a bit trickier. If every officer had the right to determine which laws on the books were to be enforced or not then no law could be. This is a question for the courts to decide not the police. That said, if someone feels that a law is unjust and should not be enforced they have a right to remove themselves from the job and not carryout their orders. That action does carry consequences.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Not applicable here. Besides, I wouldn't let you in if I was counting crack rocks.

And you didn't answer my question: why did they not make the arrest they were there for? The kid was there. They waited until the next day when they had a warrant.

I'm not talking about that specific incident. I don't know the facts there and one specific case is irrelevant to the overall conversation. Perhaps we are talking about different things, so I'll try to bring it back on track.

You said:

To come and arrest someone at *THEIR HOME* a warrant is needed, unless exigent circumstances exist, or valid consent is given, is that not correct?

I said it wasn't and explained why. Again, not addressing any specific incident, but how case law currently reads. I give this example:

I come into your house to arrest your spouse for a driving warrant. You are sitting there counting crack rocks into your pipe. You think I can't arrest you because I'm there for an unrelated warrant?

I am in the house legally with an unrelated warrant. I see you engaged in criminal activity. The fact it is your home is irrelevant. I am already legally in your home, I can make the arrest. I do not need your consent to arrest you. I don't need a new warrant to arrest you. You are confusing when I can enter and when I can make an arrest after I've gained entry. If you said "to come and enter the residence..." you would be correct. When you say "to come and arrest" you are incorrect.

TLDR: If I'm already inside the residence by other legal means, I do not need anything further to make an arrest of someone I see inside that residence (resident or not) engaged in criminal activity. If I'm outside of the residence, that's when your warrant/consent/exigent circumstances come into play.

 

[griffin]

I am in the house legally with an unrelated warrant. I see you engaged in criminal activity.

Now you're just being obtuse. You are changing the parameters of our discussion.

Coming upon ancillary criminal activity has no place in this discussion. You think the SCOTUS would say that you could package contraband in front of law enforcement without penalty?

Damn. I thought INGO was better than this.

 

[rgrimm01]

There are several comments on here that state the law is the law and that is what is enforced with no officer discretion available?

I did a quick search of "dumb Indiana laws" that are still on the books. They are somewhat humorous and/or antiquated, but on the books nonetheless and not being enforced.

This would lead one to believe that LE does indeed have discretion. That discretion may very well be determined, in part or wholly, by admin emphasis or lack thereof.

The OP question, "where do you draw the line?", should stand.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I am in the house legally with an unrelated warrant. I see you engaged in criminal activity. The fact it is your home is irrelevant. I am already legally in your home, I can make the arrest. I do not need your consent to arrest you. I don't need a new warrant to arrest you.

To get this discussion back on track, how is this remotely related to the case at hand? What conduct was the mother participating in that would give any reasonable person the belief that she was arrestable under any statute? I don't think anyone is talking about powers of arrest vis-a-vis criminal conduct directly observed by the arresting officers. I think that is pretty iron-clad. The issue is power of arrest vis-a-vis conduct that is not criminal in nature, merely inconvenient for the arresting officer while not rising to the level of statutory obstructing justice.

Say, I stop a LEO in front of my house and complain that I (but not the LEO) just witnessed my neighbor jaywalking before entering their home. Would said LEO be justified in A) knocking on my neighbor's door to confront them about my charge or B) knocking down my neighbor's door to arrest them on my word of the charge?

I would say neither, because of the nature of the criminal act as a mere infraction. Now, same question, but the charge is a misdemeanor, say discharging a firearm into the ground. Then again, a felony charge, say, discharging a firearm into their spouse's chest. Keeping in mind, there is no physical evidence for any of my charges, other than my word.

Without immediate corroboration, I would say even the misdemeanor charge only warrants the LEO blowing me off and leaving my neighbor alone. Even on the felony accusation, the LEO reacting as option A) would be within the LEO's discretion based on his knowledge of the situation. In no case would option B) be warranted.

In this case, option B) was literally unwarranted, but the accuser was the DA, not this woman's neighbor, and the LEOs (plural) did not witness any criminal activity by this mother on their own.

There are no two ways about it. These LEOs just wrote this woman a big, fat, check, and her son a get out of jail free card.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Where some people believe that certain rights were created by an imaginary being.

The only thing I am retaining after reading this whole thing is that frank appears to be an atheist.

Frank, Do you understand That you believe in a thing that cannot be proven? That there is no god? That requires the same quality as believing in god.... You have FAITH, Frank!

I am not saying anything...... I am just observing.

 

[griffin]

frank appears to be an atheist.

Lots of cops are atheists. Thus right and wrong are subjective. I thought we all knew that?

They think the Constitution is a living document, subject to the whims of whoever is their boss at the time. They will do whatever their boss tells them. Cited here over and over.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Lots of cops are atheists. Thus right and wrong are subjective. I thought we all knew that?

They think the Constitution is a living document, subject to the whims of whoever is their boss at the time. They will do whatever their boss tells them. Cited here over and over.

I was just rubbing his nose in it so I can see how he responds to being accused of having faith. His take on things usually are unique and entertaining and I just wanted to poke the bear and then run away. Sorry for derailing the thread, I just couldn't let an opportunity go without making trouble.

 

[Denny347]

The only thing I am retaining after reading this whole thing is that frank appears to be an atheist.

Frank, Do you understand That you believe in a thing that cannot be proven? That there is no god? That requires the same quality as believing in god.... You have FAITH, Frank!

I am not saying anything...... I am just observing.

What? Faith? To believe something without proof does take faith. However, you are twisting it around. We do not believe BECAUSE there is no proof, that is not faith. Someone can say that there is a teacup orbiting the Earth. Without seeing it, I would not believe it existed. Those that believe it exists without seeing it do so with faith.

 

[Denny347]

Lots of cops are atheists. Thus right and wrong are subjective. I thought we all knew that?

They think the Constitution is a living document, subject to the whims of whoever is their boss at the time. They will do whatever their boss tells them. Cited here over and over.

Right and wrong has always been subjective throughout history. Believers pick and choose the right and wrongs from the Book, thus it is subjective. If we followed ALL the right and wrongs as given in the Book, there would be more stonings and executions over trivial "infractions". Your bias against LEO is quite obvious. No one here has stated anything that would lead anyone but YOU to think we look to our bosses to interpret the Constitution. Total BS. We follow the laws and court rulings in regards to the Constitution, that is how our system works. I know you have a different OPINION of the Constitution and how it is applied but I am sorry to say that your anonymous internet opinion is worthless. But I'm sure you knew that already.

 

[griffin]

If we followed ALL the right and wrongs as given in the Book, there would be more stonings and executions over trivial "infractions".

I suppose if you thought you were following old Jewish law. (Not sure why you would follow old Jewish law). But you know that even back then it was not common. Right? I mean, you understand all that, right? No? Didn't think so. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, do you?

No one here has stated anything that would lead anyone but YOU to think we look to our bosses to interpret the Constitution.

But people here have stated unequivocally that they would follow orders from their command, sergeant, or shift supervisor, including you. phylodog said it's not within his purview to determine constitutionality. Just do what you are told, just like in LA and NY and NJ and elsewhere.

Listen, we all understand that. We expect that. Just don't lie to us that you won't behave that way, because we know you will. What was the term Liberty used, Little Nazis or New Nazis or something? I should look it up.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Now you're just being obtuse. You are changing the parameters of our discussion.

Coming upon ancillary criminal activity has no place in this discussion. You think the SCOTUS would say that you could package contraband in front of law enforcement without penalty?

Damn. I thought INGO was better than this.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm responding to what you actually wrote, not what you apparently meant. I can't read your mind through the Internet, I'm not the NSA.

The whole meaning of your statement "To come and arrest someone at *THEIR HOME* a warrant is needed, unless exigent circumstances exist, or valid consent is given, is that not correct?" IS that if I came across criminal activity of someone while in their home I couldn't arrest them outright, and that's the part I've been addressing since the beginning.

 

[griffin]

Damn. It's worse than I thought.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm responding to what you actually wrote, not what you apparently meant. I can't read your mind through the Internet, I'm not the NSA.

The whole meaning of your statement "To come and arrest someone at *THEIR HOME* a warrant is needed, unless exigent circumstances exist, or valid consent is given, is that not correct?" IS that if I came across criminal activity of someone while in their home I couldn't arrest them outright, and that's the part I've been addressing since the beginning.

Hell, you don't even need that... I arrested a guy the other day at his house, no warrant present. He answered the door and "boom" shiny bracelets.

 

[griffin]

Hell, you don't even need that... I arrested a guy the other day at his house, no warrant present. He answered the door and "boom" shiny bracelets.

Did you arrest an 11 year old kid without a warrant, without his presence, and without his mother's consent?

Didn't think so.

Apparently one of us misunderstands the law. You think it is okay. I don't think it is okay. Which of us do you think is right?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Did you arrest an 11 year old kid without a warrant, without his presence, and without his mother's consent?

Didn't think so.

Apparently one of us misunderstands the law. You think it is okay. I don't think it is okay. Which of us do you think is right?

Look, you think its obtuse, but words matter. Especially when discussing points of law. To you "detain" and "take into custody" may be the same thing. In a courtroom they are not interchangeable and saying one when you mean the other can blow your case out of the water.

We cannot respond to what you think you wrote. We cannot respond to what's in your head. We can only respond to what you actually wrote and our best guess as to what you mean.

As another example, re-read what you wrote above. How would I arrest someone without their presence? Why would I need a parent's consent to arrest their child? I may need the parent's consent to enter the home to affect an arrest, but I certainly don't need their consent to arrest.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I like bacon

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I like bacon

I like hasenpfeffer.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I like hasenpfeffer.

I like Kimchi.