Posted on 12/11/2013 10:01:38 AM PST by Altariel
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A woman has sued the city of Post Falls and police officials after her northern Idaho home was searched without a warrant.
In a lawsuit filed against the city, Police Chief Scot Haug, and several police officers in Coeur d'Alene's U.S. District Court last week, Melissa A. Miller contends she sustained physical injuries, emotional pain, lost wages and other damages because of the search.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Bad news pushing a search and then trying to write up charges from an illegal search. It is especially bad when you can sit on the house and phone in for a warrant.
IMO, she had the legal right to deck him with a baseball bat. Or shoot him for that matter.
Obviously the castle doctrine doesn't apply when the criminals that break into your home wear blue uniforms. You then have no right to defend yourself.
More of this coming folks. May as well decide now what your response will be.
Judging from the news story, it sounds as though she has a case.
First, this suit was filed days ago, yet involves an incident that occurred almost exactly two years ago.
Any chance that this was filed in a hurry to make sure it was filed before the end of some limitation period?
The incident, as described by the plaintiffs, involved the police entering the home without a warrant.
When can the police constitutionally enter a home without a warrant? Only when there is probable cause.
The probable cause the police cited was that a fugitive had entered the home and they were pursuing him.
The plaintiff's own filing admits that the fugitive had indeed been in that house very recently.
Unless she can demonstrate that the police knew that he was no longer in the house, their information was current and likely constituted probable cause.
Anyone who adopts your legal advice will find themselves in prison for a long, long time.
The Fourth Amendment means what it says, not what illiterates wish that it said.
Here's what the 4th Amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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.
Therefore, a warrant is required before there can be a lawful search, and a warrant shall not be issued without probable cause.
Case law and rulings on the 4th Amendment allow certain exceptions, including what the courts have called "exigent circumstances".
Exigent circumstances simply means that the officers must act quickly. Typically, this is because police have a reasonable belief that evidence is in imminent danger of being removed or destroyed, but there is still a probable cause requirement. Exigent circumstances may also exist where there is a continuing danger, or where officers have a reasonable belief that people in need of assistance are present. This includes when the police are in 'hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.' In this circumstance, so long as there is probable cause, police may follow the suspect into a residence and seize any evidence in plain view.
These circumstances do not seem to apply in this case. The fugitive was not seen fleeing into the home and there seems to be no evidence of continuing danger. The judge apparently threw out the drug charges on grounds that they had no warrant, and no probable cause existed for a search.
If wideawake's logic were to apply, then police could enter and search any property they wished by merely reported that they were looking for a fugitive and that they had "heard" that he or she might be inside the property. The Gestapo did this on a regular basis, but I am unaware of any court ruling that has found this to be Constitutional.
and you sir are completely right on all the points of the law your cited.
You don't know how long the criminal case took and jump to the conclusion that the lawsuit was filed in order to beat some unknown limitation.
I live in Post Falls. You clearly don't know anything about the case beside what you read. Why don't you try using your brains a little, would you?
As crooked as the courts have become, Good Luck. Next time a loaded shotgun might be more effective.
Why would somebody tell someone who had no brains to use their brains?
Clearly you've begun with misrepresentation.
a warrant shall not be issued without probable cause
Correct. Therefore any lawful search without a warrant would have to at a minimum achieve that standard.
certain exceptions, including what the courts have called "exigent circumstances"
Precisely. But even in exigent circumstances they have to meet the probable cause standard.
The fugitive was not seen fleeing into the home and there seems to be no evidence of continuing danger.
Continuing danger is a good reason, but not the only one.
If wideawake's logic were to apply, then police could enter and search any property they wished by merely reported that they were looking for a fugitive and that they had "heard" that he or she might be inside the property.
This is also misrepresentation.
If they had entered into this home in search of a fugitive who turned out not to have been there recently or at all, then this would be an open and shut case of home invasion.
But even the complainant admits the fugitive had recently been in the home and if the police had been there earlier they would have got him.
The Gestapo did this on a regular basis
Record time to Godwin's Law of the Internet?
I expect that the lady will win in court. Unfortunately, the police behave more and more like the Gestapo every day in this country, cheered on by many in the ersatz law and order class. Disturbing.
So they thought he wasn't there, but entered a home they didn't think he was in just to pass the time of day, and then - by sheer dumb luck - the guy they thought was never there actually happened to have been there?
No sale.
You don't know how long the criminal case took and jump to the conclusion that the lawsuit was filed in order to beat some unknown limitation.
The criminal case and this civil case have nothing to do with one another.
The fugitive could have been guilty as sin on multiple counts but if the complainant could show that the police had no inkling that the fugitive had been in their house, then there would be no probable cause for a search.
I live in Post Falls.
Of course you do.
And I'm sure you have intimate personal knowledge of all 28,000 souls living there and know all 11,000 private residences there like the back of your hand.
You clearly don't know anything about the case beside what you read.
As opposed to you, apparently.
Are you personally involved in the case?
Why don't you try using your brains a little, would you?
Apparently I have, since all you've got by way of counterargument is a variation on the "Do you know who I am?" routine.
I'm sure that you do.
Unfortunately, the police behave more and more like the Gestapo every day in this country
Very dramatic online talk.
Definitely an insult to the actual victims of the real Gestapo, but it clearly makes you feel good about yourself.
And in spite of being illiterate (by virtue of my interpretation of the 4th amendment), I can read simple sentences if the words don't have too many syllables.
4th Amendment Text
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 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.
The courts would say it is unlawful for a homeowner to use force to defend themselves in their own home if the [warrant-less] attacker is a cop. So? I don't see the 4th saying that I don't have a right to defend against the illegal search and detainment. Yep, they are better armed, more powerful and the courts regularly create & eliminate "rights" all the time. Do our rights cease to exist because those violating them are more powerful. No.
Would I have resisted with force? No, I have no desire to get the crap beaten out of me by uniformed thugs.
“Any chance that this was filed in a hurry to make sure it was filed before the end of some limitation period?”
Would that have any impact on the facts of the case, even if we knew it to be true?
“The probable cause the police cited was that a fugitive had entered the home and they were pursuing him.”
Not according to the article: “police entered and said they were searching for a runaway juvenile”. A runaway juvenile is not the same thing as a criminal fugitive, and can’t constitute probable cause. Harboring a fugitive would be a crime, so if you suspected that they were doing that, it would be probable cause that a crime was being committed in the residence. Harboring a runaway juvenile is not a crime, therefore, it can’t constitute probable cause, and certainly not of the immanent variety that would preclude them obtaining a warrant before searching.
Nazi's regularly raided houses saying they had information that fugitives were there, when in fact they just wanted to look around. Godwin can shove it, this is the simple truth, and people that want our government to have the same power over us that the Gestapo had over Germans can shove it too.
“The criminal case and this civil case have nothing to do with one another.”
Lawyers often wait to file a civil case until after any related criminal cases are decided. One reason they do this is that findings of fact from the criminal case may then be cited in the civil filing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.