Manhunt and 4th Amendment

[Go Packers!]

During a police manhunt what are our 4th Amendment rights?

Scenario #1:
The police are going door to door searching for a dangerous suspect who is believed to have fled into a two block perimeter. They have the identity of the suspect and he does not reside within this perimeter. When the police search, what does door to door entail? Do they knock on the door and ask the homeowners questions regarding seeing or hearing anything, request permission to look in the house, search the houses without homeowner consent? What about backyards with and without locked gates?

Scenario #2
Same two block perimeter situation as in scenario #1 except a road checkpoint has been set up. All drivers wishing to leave this perimeter are questioned regarding seeing or hearing anything. Again, the officers have the identity of the subject, and you do not fit the description at all. Do they have the legal right to search the trunk without the consent of the driver?

Do exigent circumstances exist in these situations even if you are clearly not the suspect? If so, how widespread can these searches be conducted? Across a ten block perimeter, the city, county, state etc.? If the searches stated above are legal, and the homeowner or driver refused to comply, would they would be arrested for interfering with a police investigation.

Thanks for your knowledge and time on this matter.

[cacop]

During a police manhunt what are our 4th Amendment rights?

Scenario #1:
The police are going door to door searching for a dangerous suspect who is believed to have fled into a two block perimeter. They have the identity of the suspect and he does not reside within this perimeter. When the police search, what does door to door entail? Pretty much we go into the house and look for the person who is wanted. Usually guns drawn because if we are actually going house to house they are a serious violent felon. For us there generally has to be a weapon used in the crime. We are not looking into drawers and cabinets unless they are big enough to hold a person.Do they knock on the door and ask the homeowners questions regarding seeing or hearing anything, request permission to look in the house, search the houses without homeowner consent?We generally will knock. A lot of people will open their doors to us due to sirens and cops being all over the place. If someone tells us they had their doors and windows locked we will search a little more mellow than if they said they were out back watering the lawn and their doors were open or unlocked. I have yet to hear of single person refuse to let us enter. In fact most people say something like, "Please, come search my house." remember about 80% of people would have great difficulty dropping the hammer on someone intent on killing them. That is why they pay police officers to do it. What about backyards with and without locked gates? Backyard we will pretty much search without sdvising homeowners in the daytime. At night we might knock on the door and let them know we are going to check. We also might just go ahead and do a reverse 911 call and tell people to stay in their homes.

Scenario #2
Same two block perimeter situation as in scenario #1 except a road checkpoint has been set up. All drivers wishing to leave this perimeter are questioned regarding seeing or hearing anything. Again, the officers have the identity of the subject, and you do not fit the description at all. Do they have the legal right to search the trunk without the consent of the driver?The only time I have ever heard of searching every car was when the Beltway Snipers were active. They may not have even searched every car IIRC. I think they just stopped white vans because that was the info they had at the time. What is interesting is that recently I was watching on Cal POST's website recently case law updates on DUI checkpoints and the judge mentioned how back in the day where he lives the local police department used to shut down the only ways out of town (3) and stop every car after a serious crime. The courts took a dim view of that.

Do exigent circumstances exist in these situations even if you are clearly not the suspect? Yes because they usually only happen when dangerous felons are running around and may be taking people hostage. Right now in Santa Cruz county there is guy on trial for doing just that when he was fleeing from the police.If so, how widespread can these searches be conducted? Keep in mind we are not frothing at the mouth waiting for rights to violate. Not to mention manpower is very minimal these days. Most of the time we are one hot call away from being overwhelmed. We do not have the time to make searches overly wide. We are really only going to search in an area that we reasonably think the suspect is. Also more times than not we do not have enough people for a large perimeter and a search team. Across a ten block perimeter, the city, county, state etc.? If the searches stated above are legal, and the homeowner or driver refused to comply, would they would be arrested for interfering with a police investigation. More than likely we would just move on to a house where they are okay with us checking. If it turns out there was a suspect in the house hiding out the homeowner is going to be on their own. Maybe you are Billy Badass and can handle any thug that crosses your path but I think most people with the mindset of "I can take care of myself and don't need no stinking cops" is going to be the kind of person writing checks with their mouths that their asses can't cash.

Thanks for your knowledge and time on this matter.

I suspect you may have watched too many TV cop shows. They are very rarely accurate. Most of the guys at work think that Reno 911 is the most accurate depiction of modern policing on TV.

[code33]

Referring to what occurred in Cupertino today?

[4FTTY]

Trying to interfere with a house to house search for an armed subject because you want to make a statement about your 4th Amendment rights would be monumentally stupid.

As long as you don't have a bubbling meth lab in your kitchen or a little girl chained to the radiator in your living room, no one in that situation cares what's in your house.

Let them make a walk through of your house and then lock the doors and put your tin foil hat back on.

[LDSGJimbo]

I wonder if they would station Officers around the house until a warrant came through

Sent from my motorola with tapatalk.

[ke6guj]

Trying to interfere with a house to house search for an armed subject because you want to make a statement about your 4th Amendment rights would be monumentally stupid.

As long as you don't have a bubbling meth lab in your kitchen or a little girl chained to the radiator in your living room, no one in that situation cares what's in your house.

Let them make a walk through of your house and then lock the doors and put your tin foil hat back on.

so you don't think that if they saw anything "illegal" in plain sight, that they wouldn't catalog it in their mind and be back later. The item in question may or may not be illegal, but I wouldn't expect an officer to ignore what he saw, although he may wait til the manhunt is over.

[4FTTY]

so you don't think that if they saw anything "illegal" in plain sight, that they wouldn't catalog it in their mind and be back later. The item in question may or may not be illegal, but I wouldn't expect an officer to ignore what he saw, although he may wait til the manhunt is over.

That's a possibility, but the priority is to find the guy who's been shooting people. Everything else can wait or not be dealt with at all. In the situation CAcop was talking about, the SO put all non-priority calls on hold for something like 10 hours. It took close to a day to get through all the stacked cold calls.

Cops on a house to house search aren't going to be checking for bullet buttons on the on the rifles laying around a house. As long as you don't answere the door with your bullet button gun in your hand, they're not going to care.

[BigDogatPlay]

so you don't think that if they saw anything "illegal" in plain sight, that they wouldn't catalog it in their mind and be back later. The item in question may or may not be illegal, but I wouldn't expect an officer to ignore what he saw, although he may wait til the manhunt is over.

I get your point but there is still the reality of the situation. Their focus is going to be on the wanted person. I know mine would be. Particularly if that wanted person is known to be armed and dangerous as the Cupertino shooter was. Unless what is illegal is a big huge red flag and a major felony, it might not be noticed at all. And remember too that jamming up that person in the moment is going to divert resources away from the focus. Diverting those resources in that circumstance will not be undertaken lightly by the incident and on scene commanders.

For instance, if there is what could easily be considered a personal use amount of ganga, or even remotely close to it, being rolled into joints on the kitchen table no one is going to care. I wouldn't. OTOH, if there are a couple of kilos or blow being cut on the kitchen table, that's another story and will be dealt with appropriately most likely by arresting the individual, securing the house and getting a warrant later.

As stated above, if you're not doing anything illegal in your house, why worry? The exigency of the circumstance removes a lot of barriers, but the police aren't going from door to door in that situation to fish. They are looking specifically for a bad hombre who needs to be in custody. They are, to a degree, going to be limited to the scope of the exigency. Anything fortuitously found had better have some really serious criminal weight to it to warrant immediate attention.

[kemikalembalance]

WOW! Some of "you people" are scary. Maybe im and idiot, or maybe im not cool, but are some of you people that paranoid that you are willing to let someone die or a killer get loose cause you got an illegal handgun or smoke to much weed! Thats low. Im a civi and i work along side law enforcement every day. Maybe cause i work along side good cops, i may have a different outlook, but yall are watching to much TV. this is a rare occurrence that happens. They are looking for a person bent on the destruction of others. They want the bad guy! They dont care about your pirated DVD collection or you playin with your wifes massager while she is gone. If my neighbor denied them access cause he is a paranoid fool, ID KICK THE DOOR IN MYSELF. i havnt seen it all, but ive seen enough of the destruction people can cause. And those results are what the cops intend to avoid by do all that is necessary to catch the bastard. Thank you to the LEO that posted on #2.

[Go Packers!]

Yes, the Cupertino shooting yesterday and the robbery/ carjacking/ murder in San Jose a few weeks ago had me curious. I saw footage on the news of officers at a checkpoint stopping drivers and having them open their trunks.

Simple curiosity about the legality regarding this matter is what led to the post. Some of the responses were quite informative, and I appreciate those who took the time. I never stated that I wouldn't permit a search. I have nothing to hide, nor I am paranoid, nor am I some tough guy, nor am I trying to make a statement of any sort etc. I appreciate the officers and the brave work they do, and I am thrilled when the bad guy is caught. I would be more than happy to help get the bad guy off the street.

I love to listen to talk radio and get insight on all sorts of topics. I hope I can ask future questions in the LEO forum without some of the personal attacks a few people posted.

[TheExpertish]

so you don't think that if they saw anything "illegal" in plain sight, that they wouldn't catalog it in their mind and be back later. The item in question may or may not be illegal, but I wouldn't expect an officer to ignore what he saw, although he may wait til the manhunt is over.

Yeah, you should. Plus, if it's not dealt with at the time there is no point in going back later. We know whatever we saw would be gone. The manhunt would be the priority, and as long as whatever stupidity you had going on did not +1 looking for a murder suspect/cop killer then be thankful you just got a Get Out Of Jail Free card.

Yes, the Cupertino shooting yesterday and the robbery/ carjacking/ murder in San Jose a few weeks ago had me curious. I saw footage on the news of officers at a checkpoint stopping drivers and having them open their trunks.

Simple curiosity about the legality regarding this matter is what led to the post. Some of the responses were quite informative, and I appreciate those who took the time. I never stated that I wouldn't permit a search. I have nothing to hide, nor I am paranoid, nor am I some tough guy, nor am I trying to make a statement of any sort etc. I appreciate the officers and the brave work they do, and I am thrilled when the bad guy is caught. I would be more than happy to help get the bad guy off the street.

I love to listen to talk radio and get insight on all sorts of topics. I hope I can ask future questions in the LEO forum without some of the personal attacks a few people posted.

Don't take the personal attacks personally, because they're not. We get alot of guys in here who ask questions only to tell us "how it really is". It gets old. For the most part as long as you do what you think is morally right you'll be fine.

[cacop]

Yes, the Cupertino shooting yesterday and the robbery/ carjacking/ murder in San Jose a few weeks ago had me curious. I saw footage on the news of officers at a checkpoint stopping drivers and having them open their trunks.Also keep in mind with vehicles the warrant exceptions tend to be more lenient due to the mobility of vehicles. Plus with a car for fugitive all we are going to do is look for a person. The courts will not allow us digging through glove boxes or locked containers in the vehicle minus other facts.An example of other facts might be something like the car you stopped is driven by a relative of the suspect and we see locked rifle or pistol cases in the car.

Simple curiosity about the legality regarding this matter is what led to the post. Some of the responses were quite informative, and I appreciate those who took the time. I never stated that I wouldn't permit a search. I have nothing to hide, nor I am paranoid, nor am I some tough guy, nor am I trying to make a statement of any sort etc. I appreciate the officers and the brave work they do, and I am thrilled when the bad guy is caught. I would be more than happy to help get the bad guy off the street.

I love to listen to talk radio and get insight on all sorts of topics. I hope I can ask future questions in the LEO forum without some of the personal attacks a few people posted.

Sorry if I came out a little short. I got a little heated twords the end because of the reasons listed above by another poster.

[Go Packers!]

Sorry if I came out a little short. I got a little heated twords the end because of the reasons listed above by another poster.

Thanks for the follow up. I found your response the most informative of all. My intent was not to get anyone heated. I was simply curious about what if someone refused the let their home or car be searched. I actually received a private message from a moderator who said many people create postings just to bash LEOs. I am not one of those members. I have been a member of Calguns for a few years and in reality, I rarely even look at this folder, but I thought this would be a good place to gather insight regarding something that I did not have knowledge of. The moderator did mention that one posting (from someone?) was deleted because it was not appropriate. Additionally, I noticed that your initial posting was edited by the moderator. I feel that it is important that LEOs and regular citizens can converse cordially. The more open dialogue we all have, the less miscommunication we all have.

I noticed many people have read this thread, but not many have posted. Therefore, I can only comment in regards to those who have posted in regards to this topic.

There are several replies with comments along the lines of, "If you have nothing to hide......." This does concern me and I believe many other citizens that if one respects the 4th Amendment, they may be perceived to be a criminal looking to hide illegal activity. Does this mean that those who invoke the right to remain silent and will not speak without legal counsel present must be hiding illegal activity?

In my opinion, these are important issues that deserve attention.

[BigDogatPlay]

Not trying to pick a fight, trying to understand and reply appropriately....

So if you drive through a checkpoint and the officer explains that they are looking for an armed and dangerous individual who is an ongoing threat to public safety, you're going to stand your Amendment Four grounds and not let them look quickly in your trunk for the bad guy.

To what purpose? Other than standing on principle, that is.

There are several replies with comments along the lines of, "If you have nothing to hide......." This does concern me and I believe many other citizens that if one respects the 4th Amendment, they may be perceived to be a criminal looking to hide illegal activity. Does this mean that those who invoke the right to remain silent and will not speak without legal counsel present must be hiding illegal activity?

Mine was one of those replies with "If you have nothing to hide......." written a bit differently. And while that's kind of the meaning, it goes a bit deeper. See my question above as exemplar.

Immediately and verbally invoking a right to silence and refusal to submit to any search when greeted in a consensual contact situation, or a simple enforcement stop, is to many officers something of a red flag. We weren't even thinking about searching you... until you said that. To me that behavior indicates that I may be dealing with someone who has something to hide or, is perhaps trying to provoke some type of confrontation or, worst case, may wind up being a danger to themselves or others at some point.

Your actions, while absolutely within your rights as a citizen in an investigatory or arrest situation, are not necessarily appropriate to the nature of the contact we are having in the 'manhunt' scenario and are going to put me on a higher level of alert. They change the entire dynamic of the contact. Your position makes me treat you as something you most likely are not.... a bad guy. And if I am hunting for a bad hombre when you do that, my mind is going to rapidly turn to you being an associate of the suspect trying to conceal him at minimum.

I always tried to be the most friendly and fair person you'd ever want to meet, but I still had a job to do and I pretty much always got good results playing the game by the rules, every time.

[Go Packers!]

Not trying to pick a fight, trying to understand and reply appropriately....

So if you drive through a checkpoint and the officer explains that they are looking for an armed and dangerous individual who is an ongoing threat to public safety, you're going to stand your Amendment Four grounds and not let them look quickly in your trunk for the bad guy.

To what purpose? Other than standing on principle, that is.



Mine was one of those replies with "If you have nothing to hide......." written a bit differently. And while that's kind of the meaning, it goes a bit deeper. See my question above as exemplar.

Immediately and verbally invoking a right to silence and refusal to submit to any search when greeted in a consensual contact situation, or a simple enforcement stop, is to many officers something of a red flag. We weren't even thinking about searching you... until you said that. To me that behavior indicates that I may be dealing with someone who has something to hide or, is perhaps trying to provoke some type of confrontation or, worst case, may wind up being a danger to themselves or others at some point.

Your actions, while absolutely within your rights as a citizen in an investigatory or arrest situation, are not necessarily appropriate to the nature of the contact we are having in the 'manhunt' scenario and are going to put me on a higher level of alert. They change the entire dynamic of the contact. Your position makes me treat you as something you most likely are not.... a bad guy. And if I am hunting for a bad hombre when you do that, my mind is going to rapidly turn to you being an associate of the suspect trying to conceal him at minimum.

I always tried to be the most friendly and fair person you'd ever want to meet, but I still had a job to do and I pretty much always got good results playing the game by the rules, every time.

First of all, thank you for the cordial reply.

I believe we can all agree, that a person's home is their "castle." If the resident states to officers that their "castle" is secure (they have been home and windows and doors are locked), what is the officer's thought? Is it, these citizens are safe and it is time to move to the next house, or is it, these citizens are suspected in possibly aiding the fugitive, or is it, they are under duress and are being held captive by the fugitive? I truly do not know the answers to these questions, and I look forward to your response.

I realize the above the scenario is different than stopping drivers, but there are many parallels.

FYI- The news has been reporting that 400 homes were searched in efforts to catch the Cupertino murderer.

I am sooooo glad the Cupertino murderer is no longer a threat to the public. Thank you to all those who were involved in resolving this horrible situation.