Another consideration:

 

Let's say it turns out that a fenced backyard is off limits to the police.

 

Does violating that law mean that an officer cannot protect himself?

The castle walls It has been said many times that a person’s home is his or her castle. An officer need not intrude only into a person’s bedroom to violate that person’s constitutional rights: intrusion past the locked gate is sufficient to intrude upon the expectation of privacy. What happens when the defendant shares a locked gate with other individuals? May the police sneak past the locked gate to roam within the castle at will? As we shall see, the courts have held that police intrusion upon the locked common areas of an apartment violate the expectation of privacy of the residents even before the officers get to the front door of the individual apartments.

 

That was from a document on knock and talk searches. I'm on my phone and was unable to post the rest of it.

The castle walls It has been said many times that a person’s home is his or her castle. An officer need not intrude only into a person’s bedroom to violate that person’s constitutional rights: intrusion past the locked gate is sufficient to intrude upon the expectation of privacy. What happens when the defendant shares a locked gate with other individuals? May the police sneak past the locked gate to roam within the castle at will? As we shall see, the courts have held that police intrusion upon the locked common areas of an apartment violate the expectation of privacy of the residents even before the officers get to the front door of the individual apartments.

 

I'd like to see Supreme Court cases regarding this subject.

Another consideration:

 

Let's say it turns out that a fenced backyard is off limits to the police.

 

Does violating that law mean that an officer cannot protect himself?

 

Sure, he can defend himself but he would be subject to the same consequences as a private citizen that was trespassing would be.

 

If he did that and was shot dead by the homeowner on his back porch should the homeowner be charged or would that also be an unfortunate incident?

Sure, he can defend himself but he would be subject to the same consequences as a private citizen that was trespassing would be.

 

If he did that and was shot dead by the homeowner on his back porch should the homeowner be charged or would that also be an unfortunate incident?

 

I don't think one can make a blanket response to that question.

 

Let's say the homeowner missed with his shot and the officer responded and killed the homeowner. Now what?

I'd like to see Supreme Court cases regarding this subject.

 

State vs Harmon and State vs Bowling address not just the inside of the house being subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy--which applies to a locked gate.

I don't think one can make a blanket response to that question.

 

Let's say the homeowner missed with his shot and the officer responded and killed the homeowner. Now what?

 

 

I gave a response to your question. You respond to my question wit a different scenario and a question. How about you answer my question first,

I'd like to see Supreme Court cases regarding this subject.

 

I think this is the relevant case: Katz v. United States. The government needs a warrant to search in areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. And Oliver v. United States might be a more applicable ruling on "open fields." But, in the opinion Powell states a person "may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home." Further he explains "At common law, the curtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life,' and therefore has been considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes."

 

So, taking that together I imagine the Supreme Court's interpretation (and again, maybe an expert can let us know if this has been overturned) is that a person's fenced in back yard has a reasonable expectation of privacy and is thus afforded the same protections as the house.

I gave a response to your question. You respond to my question wit a different scenario and a question. How about you answer my question first' date='[/quote']

 

I answered it by saying you can't make a blanker statement. Need more facts.

I read that on another site. I'm not sure if that applies here unless they had reason to believe the child was in the house and in danger. Was that ever mentioned in the report?

The child was missing and they said he wasn't likely to answer if called and they said that they would pretty much have to get eyes on him to find him.

 

I think it applies if he is missing and thought to be in that area, it is not practical or expedient when searching for a missing child to get a search warrant for every yard that needs to be checked. From another report I saw they were checking yards and not expecting him to be in a house. I thought that it was also very hot and they thought that time was of the essence in trying to find him.

 

That said maybe he could have sprayed the dog, but he may not have had spray on him either.

I believe an exigent circumstance would be the scenario I mentioned above - the officer sees a man dragging a child into his home. That's a much higher threshold than a hunch.

 

No I think if a child were missing from a specific area and yard to yard search would be warranted if the child was thought to have wondered off. You don't have to see him getting drug into a yard. If while on that property they came across anything incriminating to the property owner they would have to back out and explain to a judge exactly why they were on the property in the first place and he would have to agree that it met the exigent circumstance criteria or nothing they saw could be used.

No I think if a child were missing from a specific area and yard to yard search would be warranted if the child was thought to have wondered off. You don't have to see him getting drug into a yard. If while on that property they came across anything incriminating to the property owner they would have to back out and explain to a judge exactly why they were on the property in the first place and he would have to agree that it met the exigent circumstance criteria or nothing they saw could be used.

 

Exigent circumstance allows officers to conduct a search in situations where they would otherwise have been able to get a warrant if there weren't demands for immediate action. A judge wouldn't have issued a blanket warrant for the entire neighborhood. And for this specific yard, the officer would have needed probable cause to believe the child was in this specific yard to claim exigent circumstance and the fact that there was a missing child isn't probable cause for that. Maybe there's more to the story that led the officer to believe had no other choice, but the dog wouldn't have been shot if the guy's yard wasn't searched in this manner. If this was an illegal search then I think it makes the officer culpable for killing the dog (and I also don't think that should be "company policy" anyway).

The child was missing and they said he wasn't likely to answer if called and they said that they would pretty much have to get eyes on him to find him.

 

I think it applies if he is missing and thought to be in that area, it is not practical or expedient when searching for a missing child to get a search warrant for every yard that needs to be checked. From another report I saw they were checking yards and not expecting him to be in a house. I thought that it was also very hot and they thought that time was of the essence in trying to find him.

 

That said maybe he could have sprayed the dog, but he may not have had spray on him either.

 

You can't honestly believe that what you stated in the first paragraph is a reason to violate 4th amendment rights.

 

You can't honestly believe that what you stated in the first paragraph is a reason to violate 4th amendment rights.

 

So if a deaf/autistic/ young child is missing you think only public areas such as parks and sidewalks should be checked?

 

How would you suggest such a child be found?

So if a deaf/autistic/ young child is missing you think only public areas such as parks and sidewalks should be checked?

 

How would you suggest such a child be found?

 

By that reasoning, what would stop them from breaking into homes to search for the child?

 

While I think someone's fenced in back yard shares the same protections as their home, I don't think there would have been any kind of issue with the officer simply looking over the fence. So to answer your question, I would say they could have looked for the child and knocked on doors and such, but should still need a warrant to search a more specific location.