What kind of dog is that? Is it a big beastly dog?

 

Big, skinny hunting dog. Those grayish/silver ones. They have a reputation as being kind of aloof (read: stupid) dogs (i.e., labs have a "smart" dog rep).

We sometimes hear of police going house to house. Does that require consent by each homeowner?

 

Why would they be going house to house?

 

Not saying they don't, just that it's a situation I haven't heard of right off.

 

Just a side note, I know one law student who has a doormat that says "Come Back With A Warrant".

Fair question to ask.

 

Checkpoint: You're stopping me even though I haven't done anything to warrant a stop. You're making me prove I'm innocent. You don't need cause.

 

vs

 

Walking onto one's property and being barred from entering my home to make me prove I'm innocent when you have no reason to suspect me. I am protected in my home. You cannot enter my home without a warrant.

 

It's a clear and easy distinction for me.

 

 

At a DUI checkpoint they can't search your car without a warrant or probable cause either.

 

All they can check for is sobriety and maybe registration/license, etc.

 

If they're doing a checkpoint under the pretenses of sobriety and searching for other things and someone has a way of proving such, then everything else is out the door. Proving it might not be as difficult as some may think either. I say that because I'm not sure of how the case law has played out on things like that, but I'd imagine that one person with a hidden cellphone or some type of GoPro dash cam might be able to do so if the situation were egregious enough.

As I mentioned above do we know if the law prevents an officer from walking into one's back yard?

 

Yes. They need a reason to enter someone's private property (either a warrant, some exception to the warrant requirement like hot pursuit, "exigent circumstances"-- i.e. they hear a gunshot and someone screaming "no, don't kill me", etc.). I know this isn't a great answer, but the best answer to your question as to whether it prevents an officer from walking into someone's backyard is "it depends". I think the way you are asking it would be "probably" though.

 

There's a difference between "plain view" (what you can see and observe from a public place and without the use of some kind of advanced technology), "open fields" if you own 100 acres and grow marijuana on 10 of the outer acres, you can't claim the same protections as you would for your 'home' or the 'curtilage' surrounding your home (curtilage being the immediately surrounding areas, such as a porch or an area so close that you can practically look into a window, etc.).

 

It's hard to give a clear cut answer to some of this stuff because many times, the situation is really fact dependent. There's a difference between say, houses in a suburb that are close together, versus coming down a long driveway to a house out in the country with nothing around it that has a gate and "no trespassing" sign out front.

As I've asked do we know if a fenced back yard is a no-no without a warrant? If so, easy call.

 

The answer to that question from a legal standpoint seems to make your last question/point interesting but of no value.

 

I'm not familiar with Kentucky law. Texas law gives enhanced protections past what are provided in the Constitution. I would imagine plenty of other States do as well. States can give citizens additional protections, but they can't take them away.

 

I think why the fence is important here (in the way you all are discussing it generally), or at least that it could be, is that sometimes, there are "good faith" exceptions. Say someone wonders off of public property, and only 10 feet over onto private property, but no boundary is marked. They would be more likely to justify a "good faith" exception than someone who did the same by crossing a fence because that would be a pretty clear indicator that you are crossing onto private property.

 

Again, I can't emphasize enough though, all of these situations I'm trying to describe are general and the legal analysis of things can be really fact dependent. Also, I'm not a lawyer, so this isn't meant to be taken strictly as legal advice or to be substituted for the actual advice of a licensed attorney.

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?

 

 

Lots of times in situations with missing children, kidnappings, etc. the police may have a really, really strong hunch and think, "I'll perform an illegal search, and even if the evidence takes a chance on being excluded, I've still stopped the crime" and then lets everything else take care of itself later.

 

I'm sure that if they could explain to a Judge why they did what they'd did and it wasn't something they'd made a habit of, and it was someone who was of good character, a good officer, etc., then no one is going to rake them over the coals for something like wandering into the grey area of violating a known sex offender's rights if there is a missing child that lives two houses down from them.

 

Kind of an extreme example, but I think you can see what I'm saying about how something like that might play out in reality.

Why would they be going house to house?

 

Not saying they don't, just that it's a situation I haven't heard of right off.

 

Just a side note, I know one law student who has a doormat that says "Come Back With A Warrant".

 

You've never heard of officers going house to house? Did you not watch the Boston bombing situation last year?

At a DUI checkpoint they can't search your car without a warrant or probable cause either.

 

All they can check for is sobriety and maybe registration/license, etc.

 

 

Exactly. Even though I've exhibited no signs of being drunk they can pull me over to see if I'm drunk. I don't get what's so hard to follow here.

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?

 

There's the doctrine of "inevitable discovery". It applies differently according to the State you are in.

 

Evidence that's excluded from some type of unconstitutional search is called "fruit of the poisonous tree", but, and I'm being serious, the term for evidence effected is 'taint'. There are ways to remove the taint and/or prove the evidence by alternate, independent means (and this concept is different from inevitable discovery".

 

There are also "good faith exceptions" that apply differently according to jurisdiction.

 

This, and the last reply I wrote to Jumper_Dad will probably explain a lot.

 

In reality, it doesn't play out like Law & Order or something where something is excluded and a whole case crumbles even though it's painfully obvious unless something pretty bad has been done. The whole rationale of the exclusionary rule is to deter officers from violating citizen's rights in conducting investigations and carrying out arrests.

You've never heard of officers going house to house? Did you not watch the Boston bombing situation last year?

 

Gotcha. I just didn't know how it was being used. That makes sense. I would say that's a pretty extreme example that was justified by such a mass threat to public safety. On the evaluation of things like that, the potential harms that would result from an act are definitely a part of the calculation (i.e., can't go door to door to combat underage drinking on a college campus, can do so to prevent a terror attack).

 

In general, after 9/11, there were lots of laws that were, in the opinion of many, hurriedly rushed through in a knee-jerk reaction (or more easily slipped in while the country was in fear) that gave Federal authorities some scarily broad powers when it came to fighting "terrorism".

 

I say "terrorism" because 99.9% of people would say terrorism is bad, but the "terror" powers that were given under things like the Patriot Act are also how we ended up with situations like the NSA, "Stringrays" and the Feds and ACLU fighting in Florida, etc.

JW - I say looking for a lost child is a good reason to go house to house to knock on doors. I say they have to stay within the limits of the law but it's well worth the investment of time.

Exactly. Even though I've exhibited no signs of being drunk they can pull me over to see if I'm drunk. I don't get what's so hard to follow here.

 

I think you are kind of making a category mistake with that statement though.

 

Even though I'm an American citizen, border patrol can ask to see proof of that if I'm leaving Mexico and re-entering the US.

 

Here's one of the more recent Supreme Court cases on sobriety checkpoints (constitutional):

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz - 496 U.S. 444

 

Here's a later Supreme Court case on a drug/contraband checkpoint (saying it was unconstitutional):

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond - 121 U.S. 447

 

 

Whether or not we agree or disagree, I'll just talk about the law and the reasoning that they cite behind it in general terms below.

 

The Court's rulings will generally be something along the lines of "DUI checkpoints are only pertain to something that no one has a right to do (drive drunk)... because DUIs are bad during certain seasons, there is justification for public policy that protects citizens using roadways... since the stop for a citizen abiding by the law is very brief (usually 20-30 seconds), the burden that is placed on them, while it might be inconvenient to them, is justified by enforcing laws to keep roads safe... DUI checkpoints cannot be used under the guise of anything else (i.e., to search for drugs)."

 

The reason a DUI checkpoint would be different from a stop to search for drugs is that the sweep for drugs is more akin to a Constitutional "search", more things that are private matters of law abiding citizens, like what someone is carrying in their trunk, would be revealed, and the length of the stop would make it more akin to being "detained" or a "detention" (i.e., generally when a reasonable person would have been free to leave and/or when an officer shows some exercise of authority keeping the subject from leaving... if you are being 'detained', you have more/different Constitutional protections).

JW - I say looking for a lost child is a good reason to go house to house to knock on doors. I say they have to stay within the limits of the law but it's well worth the investment of time.

 

Completely agree. If there's a missing child in my area, I have no problem with answering the door and helping as long as the officer is being reasonable.

I think you are kind of making a category mistake with that statement though.

 

Even though I'm an American citizen, border patrol can ask to see proof of that if I'm leaving Mexico and re-entering the US.

 

Here's one of the more recent Supreme Court cases on sobriety checkpoints (constitutional):

Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz - 496 U.S. 444

 

Here's a later Supreme Court case on a drug/contraband checkpoint (saying it was unconstitutional):

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond - 121 U.S. 447

 

 

Whether or not we agree or disagree, I'll just talk about the law and the reasoning that they cite behind it in general terms below.

 

The Court's rulings will generally be something along the lines of "DUI checkpoints are only pertain to something that no one has a right to do (drive drunk)... because DUIs are bad during certain seasons, there is justification for public policy that protects citizens using roadways... since the stop for a citizen abiding by the law is very brief (usually 20-30 seconds), the burden that is placed on them, while it might be inconvenient to them, is justified by enforcing laws to keep roads safe... DUI checkpoints cannot be used under the guise of anything else (i.e., to search for drugs)."

 

The reason a DUI checkpoint would be different from a stop to search for drugs is that the sweep for drugs is more akin to a Constitutional "search", more things that are private matters of law abiding citizens, like what someone is carrying in their trunk, would be revealed, and the length of the stop would make it more akin to being "detained" or a "detention" (i.e., generally when a reasonable person would have been free to leave and/or when an officer shows some exercise of authority keeping the subject from leaving... if you are being 'detained', you have more/different Constitutional protections).

 

I've read all of that. I disagree and think the "public good" angle allows for other intrusions.

I've read all of that. I disagree and think the "public good" angle allows for other intrusions.

 

I can definitely agree on it being something that has the potential to be abused if it isn't followed as it should be and/or as it was intended to be.