Baby's accidental phone call lands dad in jail

[Krikit 1,164]

What the police did is illegal and wrong on so many levels...

Are you for real?

[SAT 9,609]

What the police did is illegal and wrong on so many levels...

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

In the US, that is determined by a "map" hearing..........

Oh #######..I didn't know that I know a little about law...........

[mawilson 2,133]

What the police did is illegal and wrong on so many levels...

Are you for real?

Entering after knocks at the door went unanswered, then searching the house without a search warrant or the owners' consent?

Are *you* for real?

[mawilson 2,133]

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

There was no probable cause that the caller was in danger. A 911 call doesn't give them the right to break into your house.

[Krikit 1,164]

What the police did is illegal and wrong on so many levels...

Are you for real?

Entering after knocks at the door went unanswered, then searching the house without a search warrant or the owners' consent?

Are *you* for real?

When they're responding to an abandoned 911 call I would be pretty peeved if they didn't check inside. What if the caller was unconscious?

[SAT 9,609]

What the police did is illegal and wrong on so many levels...

Are you for real?

Entering after knocks at the door went unanswered, then searching the house without a search warrant or the owners' consent?

Are *you* for real?

The "emergency" exception allows for the search of a premise without a warrant, there's also a few other exceptions.........

This is boring......I'm not playing no mo..........

[Krikit 1,164]

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

There was no probable cause that the caller was in danger. A 911 call doesn't give them the right to break into your house.

haha. thank goodness you're not a police officer then.

[SAT 9,609]

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

There was no probable cause that the caller was in danger. A 911 call doesn't give them the right to break into your house.

I think if I'm right..........probable cause is the standard of proof that the cops need to actually effect the arrest.

"reasonable suspicion" is what they needed to investigate.......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

There was no probable cause that the caller was in danger. A 911 call doesn't give them the right to break into your house.

haha. thank goodness you're not a police officer then.

I think he's right - without some obvious signs that there was an emergency going on, the police don't have "just cause" to break into someone's house.

[mawilson 2,133]

What the police did is illegal and wrong on so many levels...

Are you for real?

Entering after knocks at the door went unanswered, then searching the house without a search warrant or the owners' consent?

Are *you* for real?

The "emergency" exception allows for the search of a premise without a warrant, there's also a few other exceptions.........

Yes, but they still need probable cause for the search to be valid. Also emergency searches

must be limited to searches for the person thought to be in danger. And they can only seize

items in plain view...

[SAT 9,609]

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

There was no probable cause that the caller was in danger. A 911 call doesn't give them the right to break into your house.

haha. thank goodness you're not a police officer then.

I think he's right - without some obvious signs that there was an emergency going on, the police don't have "just cause" to break into someone's house.

There's no clear definition of "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable cause to believe", The police would have to articulate that when they testify to how they came across the evidence in a hearing.

[mawilson 2,133]

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

There was no probable cause that the caller was in danger. A 911 call doesn't give them the right to break into your house.

I think if I'm right..........probable cause is the standard of proof that the cops need to actually effect the arrest.

"reasonable suspicion" is what they needed to investigate.......

It's still "probable cause". In Kerman v. City of New York, the court found "probable cause for a forced

entry in response to exigent circumstances requires finding a probability that a person is in 'danger.'"

[SAT 9,609]

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

There was no probable cause that the caller was in danger. A 911 call doesn't give them the right to break into your house.

I think if I'm right..........probable cause is the standard of proof that the cops need to actually effect the arrest.

"reasonable suspicion" is what they needed to investigate.......

It's still "probable cause". In Kerman v. City of New York, the court found "probable cause for a forced

entry in response to exigent circumstances requires finding a probability that a person is in 'danger.'"

lol well there u go...........the police had the right to go in lol..........

[mawilson 2,133]

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

There was no probable cause that the caller was in danger. A 911 call doesn't give them the right to break into your house.

I think if I'm right..........probable cause is the standard of proof that the cops need to actually effect the arrest.

"reasonable suspicion" is what they needed to investigate.......

It's still "probable cause". In Kerman v. City of New York, the court found "probable cause for a forced

entry in response to exigent circumstances requires finding a probability that a person is in 'danger.'"

lol well there u go...........the police had the right to go in lol..........

Quite the opposite. There was no emergency that required immediate police intervention.

No evidence that anyone was in danger. None.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think if the police were looking for the caller whom they believe to be in danger, and acting in good faith. That evidence is admissible..........

There was no probable cause that the caller was in danger. A 911 call doesn't give them the right to break into your house.

haha. thank goodness you're not a police officer then.

I think he's right - without some obvious signs that there was an emergency going on, the police don't have "just cause" to break into someone's house.

There's no clear definition of "reasonable suspicion" or "reasonable cause to believe", The police would have to articulate that when they testify to how they came across the evidence in a hearing.

There are standards (in part determined anecdotally on a case by case basis) that determine what amounts to "reasonable suspicon", arising in large part out of the selective targetting by the police of certain groups (i.e. blacks and hispanics) for road side pull overs.

I don't think the guy will get anywhere with the defense, but its very arguable whether not opening a door is justification for the police to enter. This probably isn't the only bogus 911 call that the police receive - they get thousands a year.