Cop thread Spin-off: Has the cop in this scenario done anything illegal?

[Imran Siddiqui]

why is an extention chord illegal? How is that a right to search his house or even enter it?

Extention cords going from one house to another is usually done when someone is stealing power from one house. Someone else is paying for the electricity. That is a crime.

If the extention cord was in his home, he probably could enter to see what the Hell was going on.

And Ming doesn't know the Supreme Court's rulings on this issue (probable cause) since the 50s (Mapp v. Ohio). Nowadays 'probable cause' simply means 'reasonable suspicion', meaning that if the police officer thought there was any wrongdoing going about, he could enter. And having an extension cord go from one house to another is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

No jury or judge would say he entered illegally based on the minimum facts you've given. Your friend has little to no recourse. Sorry, just tell him to pay the fine.

[Donegeal]

Well, I just talked to a detective about this "hypothecital" situation. Seems I made a misjudgement (thank god this didn't actually happen to me). A house needs a warrent or permission to be entered. This is different from a car/truck in that evidence can be discarded from a vehical (thus only needing probable cause to search one). My bet in this situation is that the cop mearly made a mistake (like I did) and the charges should be fought, or he got permission to enter the premesis. Once inside, however, arresting the subject on probable cause (like smelling alcohalon his breath) could have happened. The subject could still refuse a breathalizer, but a blood draw by a doctor could have been done (and the subject would have to pay for that if he is found guilty).

Seems Ming might actually know what he is talking about.... who knew?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess though it does depend on state law. Under federal law, this search isn't illegal at all. Remember in Bowers v. Hardwick, the cop just entered after hearing some sexual noises and found two men having sex, and arrested them. This didn't violate probable cause, because he had a reasonable suspicion that two men were engaging in sodomy.

Under federal law, I think the extention cord is enough to satisfy the test, especially because there was probably loud noise coming from the party (which is why the cop was looking around the first place).

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Under federal law, I think the extention cord is enough to satisfy the test, especially because there was probably loud noise coming from the party (which is why the cop was looking around the first place).

I will disagree... First... the extension cord was running from INSIDE the kitchen to the neighbor. Since it was running from inside, there is no probable cause of illegal theft of service. And even if it had come from an outside plug, the theft was by the neighbor, and does not provide probable cause to enter the VICTIMS home without permission or a warrent.

And giving electricity to your neighbor is not a crime. The party (loud noise and drinking) was occuring NEXT door. Using your logic that he was contributing to illegal drinking next door is silly... hell, they could enter the local power plant or the local phone company offices using that logic

[Imran Siddiqui]

And giving electricity to your neighbor is not a crime.

Actually in many locations it is. You cannot take electricity from one house and use it on another, even if you have permission.

The policeman will simply say that he wanted to ask the person what the Hell he was doing connecting an extention cord to benefit the house next door, where the people were involved in an underage drinking party?

The police have very, very broad powers under 'probable cause', which has all but dissapeared except for the most egregious violations.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually in many locations it is. You cannot take electricity from one house and use it on another, even if you have permission.

Never heard of that one before... but I'm sure you could probably provide a link to a source, so I won't argue that point.

The policeman will simply say that he wanted to ask the person what the Hell he was doing connecting an extention cord to benefit the house next door, where the people were involved in an underage drinking party?

First... the fact that a party was involved with underage drinking has no relevence to the person giving electiricity. The home owner doesn't necessarily have knowledge of that at all. Again, using that logic, you could enter the offices of the power company... and that wouldn't stand up in court either

Second... Even if it is illegal to give power to a neighbor... that doesn't give the cop the right to enter the home without permission or a warrent. Yes, he could ring the doorbell and discuss it with the homeowner... but without a warrent or permission, he can't enter the home. Nothing in the story would give him probable cause to enter the home.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the fact that a party was involved with underage drinking has no relevence to the person giving electiricity.

Doesn't matter. Once an officer has a reasonable suspicion of some wrong doing, he can charge people with whatever crime he finds them doing. It doesn't matter if there was relevance to what he originally entered for.

Oh, and I'm also sure a court would find that the kid aided the underage drinking party (ie, he had to know what was going on if he supplied them power), so the officer could go over there.

Anyway, it wouldn't matter, because a court would never say that the cop did an unreasonable search in this situation. To remove all doubt, all the cop has to say is that he reasonably thought the party was going on next door as well because they were linked by the power cord.

[Ming]

Hell... the cops need a search warrent to enter the home of a suspected drug factory... They would need one here as well.

Two friends talking doesn't give him a reasonable right to assume a party is going on there as well. In addition... The power cord isn't enough to assume the party is going on there as well.

A good lawyer would have it tossed. And you know it

[Imran Siddiqui]

the cops need a search warrent to enter the home of a suspected drug factory

Not if there are people doing drugs in the parking lot and the door to the factory is open.

A good lawyer would have it tossed

Maybe, but I don't think so.

---

For example the facts in Mapp v. Ohio had two people who were walking back and forth in front of a store. The officer thought they may have been casing the joint in order to rob it (he had no proof that they were). The people walked away, and were presumably going home. The officer followed them, and then told them to stop and searched them. He found a gun in one of the people's coats.

The person was charged with illegal possession of a handgun. He said that that was an unreasonable search because there were no proximate cause. The Supreme Court said it didn't matter, because the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the guy was going to commit a crime, so he could stop the person.

The 4th Amendment is basically shredded, guys. Police get away with murder (not literally... ok maybe literally, but that's another topic ).

[Donegeal]

I think it boils down to the fact that the office was permitted into the house with the cord out of it but it wasn't stated in the report given.

[Rogan Josh]

IF this were all true, and things happened as stated, not only should the guy not be arrested but the police officer should have been disciplined.

As a matter of interest, in the US if a police officer enters your house without a warrant and without probable cause, are you within your rights to shoot him?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not if there are people doing drugs in the parking lot and the door to the factory is open.

Well yeah... if the door is "open" (and that means actually open, not just unlocked)

Nowhere in the story does it say that his door was standing wide open. If it was, I would agree with you.

For example the facts in Mapp v. Ohio had two people who were walking back and forth in front of a store. The officer thought they may have been casing the joint in order to rob it (he had no proof that they were). The people walked away, and were presumably going home. The officer followed them, and then told them to stop and searched them. He found a gun in one of the people's coats.

I agree that the cop in the story you mention had the right to search them. But how is this relevent to the case being discussed. These people were out on the street... Not in the privacy of somebodies home.

Being inside a home offers you far more protection under the law than being out in public. In public, it is assumed you have given up certain rights of privacy.

Just like the police don't need a warrant to search any garbage you have placed on the street for pick up, but do a need a warrent to enter your house without permission.

Again... a good lawyer would have had it tossed in a second. And a great lawyer would have sued the city for police harrassement, and also won.

[Rogan Josh]

I remember once waiting for a friend of mine at the Swiss/French border. I noticed that the border guard never stopped anyone who was white but stopped everyone who was black or arab (didn't notice any orientals). So I started goosestepping backwards and forwards across the border - did it about 20 times before he stopped me, and even then he just asked to see my passport, then waved me through.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As a matter of interest, in the US if a police officer enters your house without a warrant and without probable cause, are you within your rights to shoot him?

Not if you are stupid enough to let them in which appears to have happened.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Not if you are stupid enough to let them in which appears to have happened.

Hmmm... that's not what happened based on the story...

the cop sees the extension cord going to my kitchen, invites himself in and pulls me out of my room where i am sitting talking to a friend.

A cop entered his home WITHOUT permission or a warrent.