K-9 Unit and searching house

[SCpoloRicker]

If the police find someone murdered, and they follow a blood trail to a house, can they go in?

No, of course police should not follow a blood trail.

/cause thats what the topic was
//Strawman
///hey bro!

[hipster]

if you are asked by any police officer while in line of duty to consent to a search and say no you have now provided probable cause for them to do a "in plain view search" ( they can not open draws, boxes, or closets etc.)

if they happen to have a trained k-9 with them and it has detected something they can only search that specific area until a warrent arrives

a k-9 finding a scent train is an automatic warrent

the probable cause rule is legal in states

its a "catch 22" situation you are screwed no matter what you say or do

[wad04]

that's actually not true at all. If you refuse to have them search, they can't just go into your house but not look in drawers. Plain view in that case would be whatever they can see through windows and doors (probably the one he knocked on and someone opened to refuse entry).

[Lohman446]

if you are asked by any police officer while in line of duty to consent to a search and say no you have now provided probable cause for them to do a "in plain view search" ( they can not open draws, boxes, or closets etc.)

if they happen to have a trained k-9 with them and it has detected something they can only search that specific area until a warrent arrives

a k-9 finding a scent train is an automatic warrent

the probable cause rule is legal in states

its a "catch 22" situation you are screwed no matter what you say or do

So not true. Refusing a search is not grounds for probable cause. They are able to look from there vantage point outside of the door as you are talking to them and can come up with any number of things for probable cause "Heh, that guy doesn't look 21 who has an open container" of an ongoing crime. Thats why you learn at college to step outside, close the door behind yourself, and then talk with the officer.

[SCpoloRicker]

I'd like to add that this thread is rife with possibilities for a well-played "I work for"; which, having already pulled once this week, I shall avoid.

[rkjunior303]

rife.

good word!

[Rocp15126]

if you are asked by any police officer while in line of duty to consent to a search and say no you have now provided probable cause for them to do a "in plain view search" ( they can not open draws, boxes, or closets etc.)

if they happen to have a trained k-9 with them and it has detected something they can only search that specific area until a warrent arrives

a k-9 finding a scent train is an automatic warrent

the probable cause rule is legal in states

its a "catch 22" situation you are screwed no matter what you say or do

Actually we should say that any sense "in plain ... " can be used. A cop on a search warrent for a shotgun cannot go into your jewelry box, find drugs, and thereby arrest you. However if he is feeling at the top of your closet shelf for the firearm and feels a bag of drugs (in plain touch) then your SOL. It works with the other senses, and in the case of dogs.."in plain smell" This is how one lawyer explained it to me.

[wad04]

exactly

[grEnAlEins]

I'd like to add that this thread is rife with possibilities for a well-played "I work for"; which, having already pulled once this week, I shall avoid.

I work for herpes... oops wrong thread

[hipster]

I stand by what I said ( I went to school for criminal justice )
if an officer rapps upon you door and you open it and let him in Even just a foot he has gain legal entry refusing a seach constitutes grounds for prb cause anything in that room or any space adjacent to it which is not closed and or sealed can be walked into and looked at

you can all say what you want about that but you will lose any protest made in your house against them ( then they will get a warrent)and you will lose legal represented case against those actions.In the eyes of the legal system what the did will be considered permissable and you will lose( even your lawers fee)
( do not think I am saying it is right i'm just saying in the working real world it is )

with a vehicle however it gets even worse doors closed trunk closed it wont matter you open it or they will and you wont like how

just don't keep things you would not like to be discovered out of plain sight and cooperate it will be over quick and alright

[hipster]

Resistance is futile

[Lohman446]

I stand by what I said ( I went to school for criminal justice )
if an officer rapps upon you door and you open it and let him in Even just a foot he has gain legal entry

Actually, given that added bit of information I'd agree with you. Once you have allowed an officer permission to search (or enter) you can't just decide to take it back (mind you I have the danger of a little knowledge creating a big problem - 2yrs of business law).

[SCpoloRicker]

Resistance is futile

I see what you did there.

[wad04]

what you said the first time is still wrong, but by adding you let the police officer in your house, you're correct.

[nulam]

It depends.

This is not legal advice, this does not create a lawyer client relationship. Just general principals of the current state of search and seizure law.


The United States Supreme Court has held that under the Fourth Amendment the warrantless use of drug sniffing dogs and even infared cameras is permissible because "the heat that Ford intentionally vented from his [***11] mobile home was a waste byproduct of his marijuana cultivation and is analogous to the inculpatory items that the respondents in Greenwood discarded in their trash...."); Pinson, 24 F.3d at 1058 ("just as odor escapes a compartment or building and is detected by the sense-enhancing instrument of a canine sniff, so also does heat escape a home and is detected by the sense-enhancing infrared camera"). United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110, 103 S. Ct. 2637 (1983). So, under Federal law, odors and heat signature outside the home are likened to trash on the curb, in which one has NO expectation of privacy.

Now, that said, the Federal Constitution provides the minimum amount of protection of individual rights and the states are free to provide their citizens with additional portections under their respective constitutions. That is the case in my state (PA) with respect to both infared detection and canine detection. For canine there must be reasonable suspicion if the area searched is an automobile and probable cause must exist for search of the person and domicile. Commonwealth v. Gindlesperger, 560 Pa. 222 (1999).

This does not address the "hot pursuit" doctrine because that is fact sensitive and not enough information was provided to realy give any sort of analysis of what happened.