If they search the house without cause/permission and without a warrant and my kid is found there would the criminals be able to get off on a technicality?

 

No, it would go back to Exigent circumstance and any thing found would be "Discoverable" and legal to use against them.

 

If your kids was found they would not get off on a technicality of that sort.

They are perfectly capable of searching, but to gain access to a home or curtilage, which includes this guy's fenced in space, they would need a warrant or exigent circumstance. To get a warrant you need probable cause and by almost any definition it's not "probable" if you have to issue warrants to hundreds of locations. You're basically saying officers have or should have carte blanche to ignore the Fourth Amendment.

No I'm not, I just believe this is Exigent circumstance and you don't.

No I'm not, I just believe this is Exigent circumstance and you don't.

 

But you're saying the exigent circumstance is that a child is missing and thus the Fourth Amendment can be suspended in a broad area. I'm saying there appears to be no reason to believe the child was probably in this guys fenced in space, which is what's required to claim exigent circumstance.

But you're saying the exigent circumstance is that a child is missing and thus the Fourth Amendment can be suspended in a broad area. I'm saying there appears to be no reason to believe the child was probably in this guys fenced in space, which is what's required to claim exigent circumstance.

You know no more facts of this case than I do, you nor I, have no idea how close this house was to the child's home. If the child lived in that immediate area I'd think every home in that neighborhood would be close enough that there would be a reason to check. I'd understand your point if this house was miles away from where the child disappeared but it seems as if it is in the same area.

 

Bottom line you think a guys backyard is more important than finding a missing 3 year old.

 

You seem to act like the police have nothing better to do than violate your 4th amendment rights.

Bottom line you think a guys backyard is more important than finding a missing 3 year old..

 

No, I just don't think good intentions means the Bill of Rights can or should be set aside. Considering the outcome of this case is that a guy's dog was needlessly shot and killed, I think my reservations are more than justified.

No, I just don't think good intentions means the Bill of Rights can or should be set aside. Considering the outcome of this case is that a guy's dog was needlessly shot and killed, I think my reservations are more than justified.

 

That's your opinion, hopefully you would at this differently if your child was missing.

That's your opinion, hopefully you would at this differently if your child was missing.

 

So if your child was missing and the cops went into a fenced in backyard and a killed the neighbor's dog and then you found your kid in your own backyard or basement in this case you'd be fine with the cops killing your neighbor's dog because they were searching for your kid? That was found in your house.

That's your opinion, hopefully you would at this differently if your child was missing.

 

You are only attaching emotion to the kid and none for the innocent dog or the innocent dog owner.

So if your child was missing and the cops went into a fenced in backyard and a killed the neighbor's dog and then you found your kid in your own backyard or basement in this case you'd be fine with the cops killing your neighbor's dog because they were searching for your kid? That was found in your house.

 

If I lost my own child in my house I'd feel like a jerk about this entire issue. I do care about the innocent dog and home owner, I just don't think this is a constitutional violation case as many do.

 

You are only attaching emotion to the kid and none for the innocent dog or the innocent dog owner.

 

I never said killing the dog was OK, I just was stating that it wasn't wrong for them to go yard to yard to search for the child.

 

As far as emotion about child versus dog...well my child means a bit more to me than my dog and our current dog is my favorite dog I've ever owned. In fact I'm playing fetch with him as I type this.

JumperDad a large part of your argument is based on the emotion of a missing child. Not the actual rights of the homeowner. If you give officers the freedom you are talking you might as well strip the 4th ammendent with your loose interpretation of what facts must justify a warrant .

JumperDad a large part of your argument is based on the emotion of a missing child. Not the actual rights of the homeowner. If you give officers the freedom you are talking you might as well strip the 4th ammendent with your loose interpretation of what facts must justify a warrant .

 

No not at all, but I know that's how you see and perceive any issue like this.

No not at all, but I know that's how you see and perceive any issue like this.

 

You just said officers should have a right to enter an enclosed locked background without probable cause.

You just said officers should have a right to enter an enclosed locked background without probable cause.

I think you meant backyard.

 

They felt they had probable cause, just because you don't agree that it was probable doesn't mean it wasn't. A judge may rule differently. That's why we don't convict people on message boards

Lipton, how would have had the search for the child conducted under similar circumstances?

 

What if instead of a child it was an escaped prisoner, would it be OK to climb a fence to look for him?

Let's say the officer thinks the lost child is being held in the house. He is in the neighbor's back yard. He has two choices. Go over the fence and through the back yard or walk all the way around the block and back down the street to the front door.

 

Of course we want him/her going through the backyard. The child has to be the priority.

 

Unfortunate situation.

 

I'll support the officer in this case. I have no issues with their response. Their response changed nothing.

 

 

You support the officer here, which is something I wouldn't have predicted given your stance on the DUI checkpoints thing.

 

If the officer is in "hot pursuit" or "exigent circumstances", then they can arrest someone for a totally unrelated offense so long as it's illegal. An example. If you are sitting in your own home smoking marijuana, and a criminal is fleeing officers and they run by your apartment to hide and officers sweep it and see a marijuana pipe, then they can arrest you even though there was no warrant. There's a pretty famous case on that one (can't remember the name right off, but I'll look it up if you are interested).

 

I'm not trying to pick on you, just saying that we seem to have an opposite view on two separate incidents and I was kind of curious about why. What differentiates an unwarranted search of someone's residence in one case versus the brief checkpoint in the other? Is it just the fact that it's a kid and that it could possibly be a kidnapping/molestation situation, so the severity of the crime is what you are more focusing on?