Post by: csaaphill on March 28, 2013, 03:27:27 AM
theres a video to watch on the link
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
Like the guy in NJ, he should have denied their request to enter his residence and called an attorney immediately. This should be a lesson to all of us, especially veterans under the care of the VA.
Post by: csaaphill on March 28, 2013, 10:07:21 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2013, 10:13:07 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 28, 2013, 10:21:25 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2013, 10:35:03 AM
If you consent to a search, you can still reassert your rights later and tell the cops to cease their search and leave your property, so long as they haven't already developed probable cause to arrest you or make a seizure.
Once the camel's nose is under the tent,...
It's best to know your rights from the start.
Post by: csaaphill on March 28, 2013, 11:41:47 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2013, 11:48:51 AM
Listening to this again I heard him say his truck was comendeared told he wasn't going anywheres that itself would put a 50 yr old to comply people who dont usually end up worse, or dead. I hear too he complyed but under duress meaning probably scared to death, and didn't think to say no. I heard too he was threatened to blow up the safe if he didn't comply so who knows. Also it was said that this coudl be a test on what they can get away with. Or get the weakest ones first before they go after those that will fight.
Yeah, I heard all of that, too. Big boys with big guns scared me to death. Do you see yourself being scared into relinquishing your rights, CSA? I'd like to know exactly what "commandeered" means, too. "Sir, will you pull your car over there and get out?" "Am I being detained?" would have been the proper response. I'm betting this guy did everything they said without question, again not knowing his rights. Cops absolutely will let you relinquish your rights if you don't know them.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 28, 2013, 12:37:31 PM
Once the camel's nose is under the tent,...
It's best to know your rights from the start.
Yes it is. However, the principal of what I mention is important with your 5th Amendment rights as well. LEO approaches you and starts asking you questions. All of the sudden you realize that he suspects you of something and you get nervous. Don't think that because you started answering questions that means you have to keep running your mouth. You are perfectly free to respectfully decline answering questions at any point in the conversation.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2013, 12:39:26 PM
Once the camel's nose is under the tent,...
It's best to know your rights from the start.
Yes it is. However, the principal of what I mention is important with your 5th Amendment rights as well. LEO approaches you and starts asking you questions. All of the sudden you realize that he suspects you of something and you get nervous. Don't think that because you started answering questions that means you have to keep running your mouth. You are perfectly free to respectfully decline answering questions at any point in the conversation.
I absolutely agree 100%
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 28, 2013, 12:59:52 PM
If you consent to a search, you can still reassert your rights later and tell the cops to cease their search and leave your property, so long as they haven't already developed probable cause to arrest you or make a seizure.
While this is true do you think that the average Joe knows about Ferrier?
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 28, 2013, 01:13:13 PM
Post by: csaaphill on March 29, 2013, 12:42:31 AM
lol prolly why they havent came after me yet :chuckle: but even though I kow about my rights i don't know about the ferrier thing what is it?Listening to this again I heard him say his truck was comendeared told he wasn't going anywheres that itself would put a 50 yr old to comply people who dont usually end up worse, or dead. I hear too he complyed but under duress meaning probably scared to death, and didn't think to say no. I heard too he was threatened to blow up the safe if he didn't comply so who knows. Also it was said that this coudl be a test on what they can get away with. Or get the weakest ones first before they go after those that will fight.
Yeah, I heard all of that, too. Big boys with big guns scared me to death. Do you see yourself being scared into relinquishing your rights, CSA? I'd like to know exactly what "commandeered" means, too. "Sir, will you pull your car over there and get out?" "Am I being detained?" would have been the proper response. I'm betting this guy did everything they said without question, again not knowing his rights. Cops absolutely will let you relinquish your rights if you don't know them.
Did you check out the 2nd part? Theres a link on the vid that say part two it's a bit longer and goes into more of what the old man did and why. Not really defending the guys actions just know fear being a law abiding citizen sheeple does get us into trouble a lot.
Thinking they're going after the say ones firs though then will tackle those that stand up for thier rights later.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2013, 06:54:17 AM
And, people will sign anything without reading it. Some are really dumb.
Post by: Crunchy on March 29, 2013, 07:49:39 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2013, 08:24:24 AM
Special conditions ? Which ones would those be?
What I'm saying is that a judge requires a higher standard to search someone's home than to arrest them on the street or to stop and search their car before he'll issue a warrant.
Post by: Crunchy on March 29, 2013, 11:00:52 AM
Special conditions ? Which ones would those be?
What I'm saying is that a judge requires a higher standard to search someone's home than to arrest them on the street or to stop and search their car before he'll issue a warrant.
Nope all three are based on probable cause. Obviously there are exceptions.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2013, 11:15:53 AM
Special conditions ? Which ones would those be?
What I'm saying is that a judge requires a higher standard to search someone's home than to arrest them on the street or to stop and search their car before he'll issue a warrant.
Nope all three are based on probable cause. Obviously there are exceptions.
Why don't you read the Ferrier decision. It doesn't sound like you have. They specifically said in that decision that a person's private domicile is subject to the greatest protections under the 4th Amendment.
Post by: Crunchy on March 29, 2013, 11:33:00 AM
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2013, 11:41:16 AM
Special conditions ? Which ones would those be?
What I'm saying is that a judge requires a higher standard to search someone's home than to arrest them on the street or to stop and search their car before he'll issue a warrant.
Nope all three are based on probable cause. Obviously there are exceptions.
Why don't you read the Ferrier decision. It doesn't sound like you have. They specifically said in that decision that a person's private domicile is subject to the greatest protections under the 4th Amendment.
Both arrest warrants and search warrants are based on probable cause, so there is no higher burden of proof for a search warrant than an arrest warrant.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2013, 12:16:01 PM
Special conditions ? Which ones would those be?
What I'm saying is that a judge requires a higher standard to search someone's home than to arrest them on the street or to stop and search their car before he'll issue a warrant.
Nope all three are based on probable cause. Obviously there are exceptions.
Why don't you read the Ferrier decision. It doesn't sound like you have. They specifically said in that decision that a person's private domicile is subject to the greatest protections under the 4th Amendment.
Both arrest warrants and search warrants are based on probable cause, so there is no higher burden of proof for a search warrant than an arrest warrant.
Did you read the Ferrier decision?
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2013, 12:16:53 PM
I've read it, but it is still based on probable cause. Nothing special about it.
It says right in the decision that particular care is taken to preserve our rights under the 4th with regards to our own homes.
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2013, 12:21:40 PM
Special conditions ? Which ones would those be?
What I'm saying is that a judge requires a higher standard to search someone's home than to arrest them on the street or to stop and search their car before he'll issue a warrant.
Nope all three are based on probable cause. Obviously there are exceptions.
Why don't you read the Ferrier decision. It doesn't sound like you have. They specifically said in that decision that a person's private domicile is subject to the greatest protections under the 4th Amendment.
Both arrest warrants and search warrants are based on probable cause, so there is no higher burden of proof for a search warrant than an arrest warrant.
Did you read the Ferrier decision?
I sure have, and I can assure you that a search warrant for a home is based upon probable cause that evidence of a crime is located in that home.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2013, 12:27:03 PM
This thread is about some poor guy made poorer by the fact that he didn't know his rights. I have only a little pity for citizens of the US who don't know their rights and are abused by the system as a result.
Post by: Crunchy on March 29, 2013, 12:30:32 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2013, 12:31:38 PM
Don't be a sore loser :chuckle:
It's an inane argument and serves no purpose at all. I was simply pointing out what was stated in the decision.
Post by: JLS on March 29, 2013, 12:32:22 PM
You win. It doesn't make any difference, anyway. :jacked:
I win what? Call your local prosecutor's office and ask them :dunno:
Kind of hypocritical you deride someone for not knowing their legal rights and then try to refute the elements legally needed for a search warrant.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 29, 2013, 12:38:57 PM
You win. It doesn't make any difference, anyway. :jacked:
I win what? Call your local prosecutor's office and ask them :dunno:
Kind of hypocritical you deride someone for not knowing their legal rights and then try to refute the elements legally needed for a search warrant.
OK, I'm a hypocrite.
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 29, 2013, 10:33:34 PM
Ferrier is the knock and talk ruling. If the police come to your house and say they've had some sort of a complaint - no warrant - and would like to come in, they're also supposed to tell you that you don't have to let them.
Its actually even more restrictive than that. The homeowner can limit the scope of the search and revoke consent at any time.
. Any time they knock and talk without a warrant means that they've either attempted to get one and failed or know right from the get go they don't have enough to get one.
This is not entirely true. Often during preliminary investigations or to rule out a suspect a knock and talk will take place before applying for a warrant. Its a lot of leg work when you are pretty sure you arent going to find anything.
Post by: csaaphill on March 30, 2013, 10:43:38 AM
Post by: Crunchy on March 30, 2013, 12:51:32 PM
Ok thanks Piano. ya told everyone here to never let a cop in no matter what they say. no warrant no entry. THis poor guy is going through hell and this will only get worse I feel.
Hopefully most people realize that it wouldn't be wise to take legal advice from someone they don't know, with likely no legal training.
Post by: christopheri on March 30, 2013, 06:22:10 PM
He is right. No warrent no entry... It is not hard to tell a cop that you would rather not consent to search with out a warrent. :dunno:Ok thanks Piano. ya told everyone here to never let a cop in no matter what they say. no warrant no entry. THis poor guy is going through hell and this will only get worse I feel.
Hopefully most people realize that it wouldn't be wise to take legal advice from someone they don't know, with likely no legal training.
Post by: Crunchy on March 30, 2013, 06:51:09 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 30, 2013, 08:35:57 PM
Post by: NoImpactNoIdea on March 30, 2013, 08:40:03 PM
Sorry Crunchy but you are wrong. There are several exceptions to warrant requirements.
:yeah:
Post by: Bean Counter on March 30, 2013, 08:48:01 PM
Post by: JLS on March 30, 2013, 08:49:41 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on March 30, 2013, 08:51:06 PM
Post by: JLS on March 30, 2013, 08:51:50 PM
Regardless, still wrong. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement to enter a residence.
No kidding, I just said that.
Post by: Bean Counter on March 30, 2013, 08:55:57 PM
Good job, Crunchy! :tup:
Post by: christopheri on March 30, 2013, 09:07:05 PM
Regardless, still wrong. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement to enter a residence.
Welfare check doesnt not cover that. Knock and talk? Yes. Enter home? Not without a warrent.
Post by: JLS on March 30, 2013, 09:22:37 PM
Regardless, still wrong. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement to enter a residence.
Welfare check doesnt not cover that. Knock and talk? Yes. Enter home? Not without a warrent.
Maybe you should read up.
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp (http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp)
Post by: christopheri on March 30, 2013, 09:45:51 PM
Regardless, still wrong. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement to enter a residence.
Welfare check doesn't not cover that. Knock and talk? Yes. Enter home? Not without a warrent.
Maybe you should read up.
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp (http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp)
I did and have. I don't see where the police had a right to enter this mans home without a warrent. That is why they "bull dogged" him into letting them in. If they had the right to they would of just gone in his house without consent...
If Leo came to my house because a neighbor called and said that they saw me beating my wife he cant enter my home with out consent. This is hear say. He or she could do a knock and talk. He has to have probable cause and would have to arrest me before he could search. If 911 was dialed from my house and someone was asking for help then yes this falls under the six exceptions to the warrent. This is the way I understand the "six exceptions". It is an interesting topic none the less.
Post by: JLS on March 30, 2013, 09:48:14 PM
Post by: Crunchy on March 30, 2013, 09:51:50 PM
Regardless, still wrong. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement to enter a residence.
Welfare check doesnt not cover that. Knock and talk? Yes. Enter home? Not without a warrent.
Maybe you should read up.
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp (http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp)
And we have a winner!! Thanks for the link.
Post by: christopheri on March 30, 2013, 09:58:48 PM
Okay, I think I misunderstood your first post. I didn't realize you were referencing the video from the OP, my bad :sry:
No hard feelings on my end. Thanks for the link :tup:
Post by: Crunchy on March 30, 2013, 09:59:12 PM
Regardless, still wrong. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement to enter a residence.
Welfare check doesn't not cover that. Knock and talk? Yes. Enter home? Not without a warrent.
Maybe you should read up.
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp (http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp)
I did and have. I don't see where the police had a right to enter this mans home without a warrent. That is why they "bull dogged" him into letting them in. If they had the right to they would of just gone in his house without consent...
If Leo came to my house because a neighbor called and said that they saw me beating my wife he cant enter my home with out consent. This is hear say. He or she could do a knock and talk. He has to have probable cause and would have to arrest me before he could search. If 911 was dialed from my house and someone was asking for help then yes this falls under the six exceptions to the warrent. This is the way I understand the "six exceptions". It is an interesting topic none the less.
You are wrong. A witness that observed an incident is not hearsay. The cops will knock on your door and if they are not able to see that your wife is ok, then they can enter without a warrant to check on her.
I dont recommend giving it a try to see what happens.
Post by: christopheri on March 30, 2013, 10:34:51 PM
Regardless, still wrong. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement to enter a residence.
Welfare check doesn't not cover that. Knock and talk? Yes. Enter home? Not without a warrent.
Maybe you should read up.
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp (http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp)
I did and have. I don't see where the police had a right to enter this mans home without a warrent. That is why they "bull dogged" him into letting them in. If they had the right to they would of just gone in his house without consent...
If Leo came to my house because a neighbor called and said that they saw me beating my wife he cant enter my home with out consent. This is hear say. He or she could do a knock and talk. He has to have probable cause and would have to arrest me before he could search. If 911 was dialed from my house and someone was asking for help then yes this falls under the six exceptions to the warrent. This is the way I understand the "six exceptions". It is an interesting topic none the less.
You are wrong. A witness that observed an incident is not hearsay. The cops will knock on your door and if they are not able to see that your wife is ok, then they can enter without a warrant to check on her.
I dont recommend giving it a try to see what happens.
I would never put myself in that situation.
Post by: Crunchy on March 30, 2013, 10:49:47 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on March 31, 2013, 12:02:20 AM
Regardless, still wrong. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement to enter a residence.
Welfare check doesn't not cover that. Knock and talk? Yes. Enter home? Not without a warrent.
Maybe you should read up.
http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp (http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp)
I did and have. I don't see where the police had a right to enter this mans home without a warrent. That is why they "bull dogged" him into letting them in. If they had the right to they would of just gone in his house without consent...
If Leo came to my house because a neighbor called and said that they saw me beating my wife he cant enter my home with out consent. This is hear say. He or she could do a knock and talk. He has to have probable cause and would have to arrest me before he could search. If 911 was dialed from my house and someone was asking for help then yes this falls under the six exceptions to the warrent. This is the way I understand the "six exceptions". It is an interesting topic none the less.
You are wrong. A witness that observed an incident is not hearsay. The cops will knock on your door and if they are not able to see that your wife is ok, then they can enter without a warrant to check on her.
I dont recommend giving it a try to see what happens.
Exigent circumstances...
Post by: csaaphill on March 31, 2013, 01:37:53 AM
Call to arms at that point who answers then?
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 31, 2013, 02:49:49 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on March 31, 2013, 07:00:34 AM
lots of sheeple here it seems. No one is coming into my home without a warrant!!!! period. I hear and intruder in the middle of night i will defend myself. I go outside and they ask to come in hell no. they try to come in against my will lead will fly.
Call to arms at that point who answers then?
lots of sheeple here it seems. No one is coming into my home without a warrant!!!! period. I hear and intruder in the middle of night i will defend myself. I go outside and they ask to come in hell no. they try to come in against my will lead will fly.I am afraid for you Csa. I have this bad feeling we are going to see you on the news someday as having a shootout with police cause they picked a flower from your front yard.
Call to arms at that point who answers then?
Post by: csaaphill on April 01, 2013, 12:29:00 AM
Don't feel bad just dont let the truth be unheard or let the liberals rewrite it like they try to do all the time. Naw not for a stupid flower, but if it comes to defending the constitution don't let it be in vain.lots of sheeple here it seems. No one is coming into my home without a warrant!!!! period. I hear and intruder in the middle of night i will defend myself. I go outside and they ask to come in hell no. they try to come in against my will lead will fly.
Call to arms at that point who answers then?lots of sheeple here it seems. No one is coming into my home without a warrant!!!! period. I hear and intruder in the middle of night i will defend myself. I go outside and they ask to come in hell no. they try to come in against my will lead will fly.I am afraid for you Csa. I have this bad feeling we are going to see you on the news someday as having a shootout with police cause they picked a flower from your front yard.
Call to arms at that point who answers then?