Police abuse power, again

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Police lie to resident claiming that there was a 911 call from residence that disconnected to gain entry to home without a warrant:

Heres the article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/durham-fake-911-calls-durham-police-faked-911-calls-for-illegal-home-searches

From the article:

The Inquisitr says Beck knocked on the defendants door in South-Central Durham. When she answered, Beck lied and said that someone in her home had called 911 and hung up, and that he wanted to make sure everyone was safe. The defendant allowed Beck to search her home as a result, and it was then that he discovered two marijuana blunts and a marijuana grinder.

Beck, however, could produce no warrant at the hearing, and copped to his deceitful excuse to enter the home illegally. The charges against the woman were dropped. The officer claimed that his superiors allow such unlawful entries under a department policy in cases where domestic violence is alleged, recalled Morgan Canady, the defendants lawyer.

The Durham County Chief District Judge Marcia Morey, who was overseeing the case, told Beck pointedly: You cannot enter someones house based on a lie.

The Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez refuted Becks testimony that it is a policy of the department.

Just lovely

[Jaxom 1974]

That article seems to indicate that it was the one officer over reaching. I cannot defend the action, not sure I'd want to try, but in this case you seem to be painting with a pretty broad brush, Scot.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

That article seems to indicate that it was the one officer over reaching. I cannot defend the action, not sure I'd want to try, but in this case you seem to be painting with a pretty broad brush, Scot.

The article indicates that the officer in this case claims this was a common practice, though higher-ups denied it was policy. In any case I don't see where Scot is painting over broadly, all he's said is that this is another example of police abusing power, which seems unquestionable.

[KiDisaster]

Wait, what?

The defendant allowed Beck to search her home as a result

Now I'm no lawyer, but once you give consent the police no longer need a warrant right? Still a scummy thing to do to get consent but it sounds like, based on the limited information here, the homeowner could still have refused the search.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

KiD,

That's generally the case this judge didn't see it that way. I wish more Judges took the view that fraud by officers in the line of duty is hugely problematic.

[baxus]

Wait, what?

Now I'm no lawyer, but once you give consent the police no longer need a warrant right? Still a scummy thing to do to get consent but it sounds like, based on the limited information here, the homeowner could still have refused the search.

I'm no lawyer either, but gaining consent by illegal means should make that consent null and void.

I'm rather certain that the guy said: "I must enter your home to make sure everything is all right" instead of "May I enter your home and look around a bit?" ;)

[KiDisaster]

Yeah I agree, I'm not saying what the officer did was OK and I'm glad the judge didn't think so either.

My post was more along the lines of "This is why you don't give consent." because another judge could have easily deemed the search legitimate because of it and the charges would have stuck. Guess it wasn't clear, my bad.

[MerenthaClone]

Yeah I agree, I'm not saying what the officer did was OK and I'm glad the judge didn't think so either.

My post was more along the lines of "This is why you don't give consent." because another judge could have easily deemed the search legitimate because of it and the charges would have stuck. Guess it wasn't clear, my bad.

Yeah, but when you have a police officer saying that they have the legal right to search their house, refusing could get you, well, shot.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

I look at the officers method of gaining entry here in the same way I look at someone who gives sexual consent under the influence of a drug/beverage. As in, there can be no consent under the circumstances. The lie = the drug/beverage, thinking about it literally. The home owner should consider legal action, though pursing would probably end up fruitless.

[KiDisaster]

Yeah, but when you have a police officer saying that they have the legal right to search their house, refusing could get you, well, shot.

So your advice then, is let the cops do whatever they want because they might shoot you if you don't? Thereby rendering any and all laws dictating how police officers can and cannot conduct themselves null and void?

I'd rather stand up for my rights, and choose to believe that the vast majority of police officers aren't going to shoot me in cold blood for saying "You cannot search my home without a warrant."

[aceluby]

I look at the officers method of gaining entry here in the same way I look at someone who gives sexual consent under the influence of a drug/beverage. As in, there can be no consent under the circumstances. The lie = the drug/beverage, thinking about it literally. The home owner should consider legal action, though pursing would probably end up fruitless.

Really? So someone under the influence can't give consent?

In that case, pretty much everyone I know is a rape victim.

On topic, I'm actually surprised at the judge given that cops will often lie to get people to admit or consent. Happens all the time and what they find is typically admissible. "I pulled you over because your taillight was flickering" "If you just tell me this will all go easier on you" "What's that I smell?" "By denying me consent to search you've given me probable cause".

What I find stupid is that this cop had nothing better to do than to harass someone and then take them to court for weed and some paraphernalia that was obviously being used in the safety of their own home.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Really? So someone under the influence can't give consent?

In that case, pretty much everyone I know is a rape victim.

On topic, I'm actually surprised at the judge given that cops will often lie to get people to admit or consent. Happens all the time and what they find is typically admissible. "I pulled you over because your taillight was flickering" "If you just tell me this will all go easier on you" "What's that I smell?" "By denying me consent to search you've given me probable cause".

What I find stupid is that this cop had nothing better to do than to harass someone and then take them to court for weed and some paraphernalia that was obviously being used in the safety of their own home.

I said under the circumstances. As in, someone giving you something to make consent more likely. I see no difference between the lie, drugs and alcohol here.

[MerenthaClone]

So your advice then, is let the cops do whatever they want because they might shoot you if you don't? Thereby rendering any and all laws dictating how police officers can and cannot conduct themselves null and void?

I'd rather stand up for my rights, and choose to believe that the vast majority of police officers aren't going to shoot me in cold blood for saying "You cannot search my home without a warrant."

No? I'm saying that I'm tired of the standard refrain being "just don't consent to a search." Its good advice, don't get me wrong, but the idea that educating people on that right will basically solve the problem is false. It won't, not until the idea that police can legally lie to secure entry is removed from the public consciousness. Because, really, if an officer come to my door and said they had the right to enter based on exigent circumstances, I'd probably step aside, try to find a recorder of some kind, and let them search, while announcing that I did not consent to a search. If an officer is willing to outright lie about receiving 911 calls, I'm not really sure I'd trust them not to do worse. People who exercise their rights at the expense of overzealous police officers tend to get slapped down.

All I was saying is that I disagreed with your "well clearly its the homeowners fault for consenting to a search" reasoning. They might have had good reasons for "consenting".

Really? So someone under the influence can't give consent?

Uh, this is a pretty standard understanding, yes. How drunk is "too drunk", however, is pretty unclear.

[KiDisaster]

No? I'm saying that I'm tired of the standard refrain being "just don't consent to a search." Its good advice, don't get me wrong, but the idea that educating people on that right will basically solve the problem is false. It won't, not until the idea that police can legally lie to secure entry is removed from the public consciousness. Because, really, if an officer come to my door and said they had the right to enter based on exigent circumstances, I'd probably step aside, try to find a recorder of some kind, and let them search, while announcing that I did not consent to a search. If an officer is willing to outright lie about receiving 911 calls, I'm not really sure I'd trust them not to do worse. People who exercise their rights at the expense of overzealous police officers tend to get slapped down.

All I was saying is that I disagreed with your "well clearly its the homeowners fault for consenting to a search" reasoning. They might have had good reasons for "consenting".

Fair enough, I agree with all of this. I wasn't saying I would attempt to physically stop them from searching the house or anything, that is how you end up getting shot. What you described is almost to the letter exactly what I would do in a situation where my home was bring searched against my will. Though me being paranoid and shit I'd probably have my phone out and recording from before I opened the door to greet them.

[awesome possum]

Again? More like almost constantly. Here's another example, not quite of a cop abusing his power, but of the system letting him off the hook with a slap on the wrist.

A former Colorado police officer who was found guilty of abusing a 15-year-old girl over a period of years was sentenced to 30 days of work release and three years of probation this week.

Last year, 35-year-old Berthoud Officer Jeremy Yachik was charged with four counts of child abuse and one count of false imprisonment after his ex-fiance sent a video to authorities showing a man kicking, choking and punching a child, who was described as his daughter in news reports at the time.

In the video, Yachik appears to be angry because the girl ate “carrots” out of the family refrigerator. The girl later reportedly told investigators that Yachik had zip-tied her, choked her until she blacked out, and slammed her head into a wall so hard that it left a hole.

I don't know what the normal sentencing is for the crime of abusing a child for years, but I doubt it's a month of work release and probation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

The wonder of the blue wall.

[BloodRider]

The other side of this is that as word of this spreads, this type of crying wolf will prevent legitimate police trying to help people from getting access to the person who called about an emergency.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

Huh?

[BloodRider]

OK. Suppose Mr. "On the up and up" policeman actually gets dispatched to a house where a 911 call actually really was disconnected. But the person who answers the door has heard of this tactic of lying about 911 calls to gain entry, and tells the policeman to fuck off.

Its the whole boy who cried wolf thing. Point being, his actions have very real consequences that can cause harm because no one trusts the police.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

Link please. That'a certainly not the story told in the article I found.