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

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmm... that's not what happened based on the story...

It's not wise to base any conclusion on that story. I just assumjed that he's outright lieing.

[Ming]

I'll grant you that... however, the opening line of the thread states...

According to this testimony, accepting it as 100% fact, has the officer broken a law?

So all my answers have been based on this, since we have no other facts to work with

[rah]

While I agree with most of the points that Ming makes, one additional fact must be considered. When the cops showed up and everyone scattered, all the cops would have to say is that they saw someone heading in the general direction of your house. I believe that would provide probable cause.

[kittenOFchaos]

That cop got the job done and if the pen pushers in City Hall don't like it, they can sit on this middle finger and...

[Sava]

Your friend was the one doing the illegal activity orange.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by rah
While I agree with most of the points that Ming makes, one additional fact must be considered. When the cops showed up and everyone scattered, all the cops would have to say is that they saw someone heading in the general direction of your house. I believe that would provide probable cause.

Sorry Rah. You cannot enter a house because of probable cause with out a warrent unless you "reasonable suspicion" that someones life is in danger. The cord or even a person scattering from the party into the house do not indicate trhat someone is dead, dieing or going to die.

Now if he heard a gunshot or saw flames, that is a different situation...

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

I assumed the door was wide open. At the very least to let the cord out.

I guess the main problem is that we are ALL making assumptions about the scene and the event because we don't have all the facts. We would need more facts to know for sure.

Yeah, if the door was closed and the officer didn't see anyone inside, he wouldn't be able to go in, but I assume that the door was open and there were some people in the guy's house.

You cannot enter a house because of probable cause with out a warrent unless you "reasonable suspicion" that someones life is in danger.

No, its simply 'reasonable suspicion' a crime is in the process of being comiitted. Life has nothing to do with it.

[Donegeal]

try it and see...

[Japher]

The cop was in the wrong if he wasn't let in... period.

I have no basis for this 'opinion' accept to say that I watch a lot of "Law and Order".

When I was in high school I went on a beer run, stopped at Burger King to get some food. A couple of guys I knew from school were there and they thought it would be funny to take their soda cups out to their car and fill it up with beer and then hang out in BK dinking. The employees thought it was a good idea to call the cops on them. As we were leaving the cops showed up and told me they were going to search my car (packed with beer!). I told them to shove it, and argued with them that they could search the car if they a) got a warrent, or b) got permission from the BK owner, or at least the emplotyees, seeing as I was on their lot. The cops, dumb as they were, finally decided to talk to those who called them. They informed the cops that it was not me, but the other guys who were drinking. They were now head out of the parking lot in their car. Those guys never talked to me again, because they got a minor in possesion, drunk and public, and duis.

Anywho... the point. Cops cannot violate your privacy, or perform test on you without your permission or without suspicion.

I think that the reason this person got the fines is because they acted in a fashion that got them caught. The cord being one, but not the only factor.

[rah]

I thought you could enter if you were in the pursuit of a suspect. Underage drinking is a crime and all those that scattered were possible suspects.

[Sava]

Originally posted by rah
I thought you could enter if you were in the pursuit of a suspect. Underage drinking is a crime and all those that scattered were possible suspects.

Under-age drinking at a party, and an extension cord from a house to the house in question. That is reasonable probably cause.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I guess the main problem is that we are ALL making assumptions about the scene and the event because we don't have all the facts. We would need more facts to know for sure.

Granted... the details are slim.

but I assume that the door was open and there were some people in the guy's house.

Based on his discription... the cop CAME INTO THE BEDROOM where he and a friend were only chatting.

I don't know how he could look in the door (assuming it was open, which I don't) and see ANYTHING that would lead him to believe a crime was being commited, and would give him the right to bust into the bedroom

[Sava]

I think once he's in the house, all is fair game.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the cop CAME INTO THE BEDROOM where he and a friend were only chatting.

Bedrooom doors can be open, you know .

He could have been suspicious because of the cord, entered the open door to the house and then saw the open bedroom door, and saw two kids in there and considered them part of the party (or at least one of them being from the party who scattered when he appeared).

[Ming]

A lot of questionable "ifs" there... and if just one of them isn't true (and unless he comes back and tells us more details) it doesn't work.

Again Imran... I'd take my chances with a good lawyer on this one... It would be TOSSED!