Man Stands Up For Constitution - Denies Police Access to His Home

[Slawburger]

If a toddler in your home finds a cordless phone that has fallen off the couch onto the floor and randomly pushes the buttons 9-1-1 ...the police will not leave until they have walked through the house. Don't ask how I know.


And no, I didn't really mind, just embarrassed.

 

[T.Lex]

T.Lex... Just a thought. Consider the castling statutes. I'm really hazy but there is a distance from dwellings considered "castled". Goes back to medieval castles and motes. the mote being part of the castle. In short they just can't just stand at a window peer in without a warrant.

Tough defense but it's there.

Well couple things going on there. First, every state can define this stuff differently, so I'm going by the "general" framework or Indiana-specific. As far as I know, there is no specific boundary or distance that defines "curtilage." I know of one specific case where a tent on the property of a house was considered curtilage of the house. Since the house was the subject of a search warrant, the tent was considered fair game.

In terms of defenses, a jury would ultimately decide (hopefully) whether something is reasonable or not.

 

[draketungsten]

I've picked up a few good tips on dealing with police calmly, respectfully, and assertively from an organization called Flex Your Rights. They have a Youtube channel with a lot of their videos on them...


Flex Your Rights

How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters
https://www.youtube.com/user/FlexYourRights

Flex Your Rights (Flex) is a 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit launched in 2002. As a civil liberties organization, we are laser-focused on improving the constitutional literacy of all Americans. To accomplish this, we create and distribute the most compelling, trustworthy, and practical know-your-rights media content in the universe.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Nope, thermal imager was ruled a search by SCOTUS back in the 90's if memory serves

Well, 2000s. Kyllo (2001).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

[h=2]Man Stands Up For Constitution - Denies Police Access to His Home[/h]

Would you do this?​

Dude, that's either standing up for your rights or Assisting a Criminal.

I don't know why there is this desire to open the door. Talk through your door.

We need a home safety thread.

 

[zippy23]

I've actually done this before. Had a little party back in college, cops got called because someone tackled a reindeer christmas light thingy across the street, so cops came to the door, i opened it slightly, They started to move towards me like they were going to come in the door, i said hold up, do you have a warrant? They said they can go get one if needed, i said that would be just fine, there was a girl sitting on the couch and one of the officers called out to her and asked her date of birth, she rattled it off, and was of age, so he quickly became silent. They were really pissed i wouldnt let them in, asking me if i had something to hide, i asked them why they need to come into my house so bad, it was as a testy exchange thats for sure. They did not come in, although one of the officers had his foot against the door so i couldnt shut it all the way. They ended up leaving after a little while but did not come in the house. Pretty crazy

 

[mikemcbride]

pretty tense situation But good for him not backing down

 

[limbsonagrizzly]

Kudos to him. Although I couldn't find the "3 forms of ID" SCOTUS ruling.

 

[sopwith21]

Nice to know there are a few people left who will stand up for what's right. However, he is lucky. The cops could have broken into his home and shot him dead and the worst thing they'd have faced is a two week paid vacation while an "investigation" cleared them of any wrongdoing.

Stand up for the law at your own risk. Glad there are still some folks out there doing it, and I hope I have that much courage when the time comes. Salute.

 

[sopwith21]

And he was very smart not to leave his home. If for some incomprehensible reason you feel you absolutely must talk to a cop, do so only through a locked screen door. At least you (or your surviving family members) will be able to show forced entry if the officer turns violent.

 

[sopwith21]

Welllll... the founding fathers, for good or ill, used the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure." They did not say "free from any search or seizure." The point is that .gov is allowed to do "reasonable" search and seizures.

Only with a warrant. And the issuance of a warrant is an illegal, criminal act except in a very narrow set of specifically described circumstances ("and no warrant shall issue").

So yes, we most certainly are free from any search or seizure that is not authorized by a warrant, and issuing a warrant is considered a crime under the Fourth Amendment unless overwhelming, obvious evidence of a crime is apparent, specifically naming the individual for whom they're searching (the cops in this video didn't even know) and the exact location of the search is explicitly named (123 Maple Street, house, living room, upper shelf of closet on east wall).

This video qualifies as none of the above. Any decent police chief who knows the law would fire these cops overnight... but don't hold your breath.

 

[T.Lex]

Only with a warrant. And the issuance of a warrant is an illegal, criminal act except in a very narrow set of specifically described circumstances ("and no warrant shall issue").

So yes, we most certainly are free from any search or seizure that is not authorized by a warrant, and issuing a warrant is considered a crime under the Fourth Amendment in most instances.

This is simply not correct, and never has been. At least not in the US. (Or anywhere else that I can think of.) The "shall issue" phrase continues "but upon probable cause" supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the things to be searched or seized. Simple criteria that are still enforced today.

The best way to show reasonableness is a warrant. But, that is not the only way.

 

[sopwith21]

What part of "no warrant shall issue" escapes us? Any six year old can understand that. You can't search without a warrant. Issuing a warrant is illegal except in the specific circumstances stated.

This is plain English.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, if you ignore all the other words around those!

Go back and read the Federalist/Anti-federalist papers and the state constitutions from about that time. The idea of requiring warrants all the time was around, but that is specifically NOT what they wrote. There are 2 ideas: people free from unreasonable searches/seizures AND any warrants had to be supported by probable cause + oath/affirmation + particularity.

All there in (what was then) plain English.

Ironic to me how some people, not necessarily you, want "strict construction" except when it doesn't say what they think it says.

Now, if you want to argue whether it should apply to the states, as written, that's a different issue.

ETA:
Just so we're clear.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[SUP][/SUP] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants 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

 

[Kart29]

Does anyone remember the Fred Sanders case?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So yes, we most certainly are free from any search or seizure that is not authorized by a warrant, and issuing a warrant is considered a crime under the Fourth Amendment unless overwhelming, obvious evidence of a crime is apparent, specifically naming the individual for whom they're searching (the cops in this video didn't even know) and the exact location of the search is explicitly named (123 Maple Street, house, living room, upper shelf of closet on east wall).

sop, if I could ask, where are you learning this? Is this L. Neil Smith, Alex Jones, where do you get this notion? Just curious, TIA.

 

[Merchomini]

your gonna need a warrant for that