Deleted

[Chinesesamurai]

Deleted

[tummy06]

I’d say you stop smoking crack

[Icypu]

There are a lot of reasons to make entry to a house. Getting my partner and myself sucked into a 4 wall unknown structure isn't worth it. Warrants and or haz hits are your friend. But the academy answer is yes you can... If you should is something you have to live with on a case by case basis.

Sent from my Phone using Tapatalk

[Chinesesamurai]

There are a lot of reasons to make entry to a house. Getting my partner and myself sucked into a 4 wall unknown structure isn't worth it. Warrants and or haz hits are your friend. But the academy answer is yes you can... If you should is something you have to live with on a case by case basis.

Sent from my Phone using Tapatalk

Thank you for your answer. This is helpful

[Yodaman]

You should probably being worrying more about the Corona virus than that! Ruuuun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[esy]

Here's the question:

You and a partner are doing a routine patrol when you see someone smoking what you believe to be crack cocaine through a window. The suspects see you and start making a motion to get out of view. As you and your partnet approach the front door and ID yourself as police, You hear them flushing the toilet which leads you to believe they are destroying the evidence. What can you do?


Isn't that considered exigent circumstance situation to enter to prevent destruction of evidence?

I'm getting mixed answers.

What crime are you planning to charge said individuals with?

Very important question you need to ask yourself which is a part of very important case law.

[zfields]

Seems like a lot of liability for a cite.

[pacrat]

Here's the question:

You and a partner are doing a routine patrol when you see someone smoking what you believe to be crack cocaine through a window. The suspects see you and start making a motion to get out of view. As you and your partnet approach the front door and ID yourself as police, You hear them flushing the toilet which leads you to believe they are destroying the evidence. What can you do?


Isn't that considered exigent circumstance situation to enter to prevent destruction of evidence?

I'm getting mixed answers.

AND THE FLIP SIDE, of this scenario. If you kick the door. Once the "perp" is hooked, booked, and interviewed, with his attorney present.

I was kick'n it in my living room, ya know, toking some perfectly legal bud.

When I got this overwhelming "taco bell trots urge". It was REAL BAD, so I give myself a courtesy flush.

Next thing I know.........KaBLAM! My door is kicked in, and some guy is pointing a gun and screaming at me in my own crapper!

"Through a window". Leads one to believe you didn't have an ARTICULATABLE CERTAINTY that it was actually anything illegal in the pipe. And isn't the "destruction of evidence exigency", "Down the Drain" so to speak,.....as soon as you heard the toilet flush?

zfields said........................ Seems like a lot of liability for a cite.

Wise words in the post Prop 47 world.

[Chinesesamurai]

AND THE FLIP SIDE, of this scenario. If you kick the door. Once the "perp" is hooked, booked, and interviewed, with his attorney present.



"Through a window". Leads one to believe you didn't have an ARTICULATABLE CERTAINTY that it was actually anything illegal in the pipe. And isn't the "destruction of evidence exigency", "Down the Drain" so to speak,.....as soon as you heard the toilet flush?



Wise words in the post Prop 47 world.

[esy]

That’s a good point. I’m asking this question as it came from the POST CA book. So obviously I need the academy version answer

Not the academy version answer. The real world answer.

Severity of the crime. What is it? Who’s creating the exigency in your scenario? What crime do you have? Based on PC 835a, what articulable facts do you have?

Edit: what is the POST LD teaching/telling you to do in this scenario? It sounds like it’s being overly confusing and setting up for a high attrition rate in the near future.

[GizmoSD]