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 agree with you I would 100% let the cops search. I just don't want them searching without my permission .

 

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.

 

Sounds like something an attorney would say.

Sounds like something an attorney would say.

 

Hahaha, yea... don't wanna get in any hot water over unlicensed practice. Hopefully I'm licensed by the time the calendar changes to a new year though.

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

 

 

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say a child goes missing in a neighborhood that isn't as nice as the one from the story. The police know that there are several houses in the immediate vicinity in which drug dealers, drug users, people with illegal firearms etc are living. Using your definition of exigent circumstances some over-zealous police officers could demands entry into any of these houses and kick in the doors of the ones that didn't comply or didn't answer search the house and arrest any resident that had any contraband, right? Because that is the next step.

 

Exigent circumstances means they have to believe that the child was at that particular house. Without any evidence that the child had been taken by a particular resident they have no right to enter a house or to demand entry. The yard is the same way. If it is an open yard or one that a 3 year old could easily access them by all means take a look. If it is a yard with a 4-6 foot high wooden privacy fence with brick posts for support like the one here don't you think their time would have been better spent looking somewhere that the child might actually be?

 

Take the legal part out of the equation: This was a stupid, poorly thought out move by the officer. There was little chance of the child being in that yard given the fence. He made a poor choice and compounded it by killing the dog who was doing nothing wrong. I think it is even worse that he wasn't man enough to wait for the homeowner and at least try to explain himself and apologize.

 

Legally allowed or not right is right and wrong is wrong.

Edited June 29, 201412 yr by AverageJoesGym

I think it is even worse that he wasn't man enough to wait for the homeowner and at least try to explain himself and at least try to explain himself and apologize.

I agree. I suspect the officer who shot the dog was hustled away quickly after the shooting. Police knew right away this wasn't going to turn out well.

Let me put it to you this way. Let's say a child goes missing in a neighborhood that isn't as nice as the one from the story. The police know that there are several houses in the immediate vicinity in which drug dealers, drug users, people with illegal firearms etc are living. Using your definition of exigent circumstances some over-zealous police officers could demands entry into any of these houses and kick in the doors of the ones that didn't comply or didn't answer search the house and arrest any resident that had any contraband, right? Because that is the next step.

 

Exigent circumstances means they have to believe that the child was at that particular house. Without any evidence that the child had been taken by a particular resident they have no right to enter a house or to demand entry. The yard is the same way. If it is an open yard or one that a 3 year old could easily access them by all means take a look. If it is a yard with a 4-6 foot high wooden privacy fence with brick posts for support like the one here don't you think their time would have been better spent looking somewhere that the child might actually be?

 

Take the legal part out of the equation: This was a stupid, poorly thought out move by the officer. There was little chance of the child being in that yard given the fence. He made a poor choice and compounded it by killing the dog who was doing nothing wrong. I think it is even worse that he wasn't man enough to wait for the homeowner and at least try to explain himself and apologize.

 

Legally allowed or not right is right and wrong is wrong.

 

Well In this case I don't think doors are or were getting kicked down, they don't even do that in suspected kidnapping cases without a warrant. A 3 year old roaming off and being in a neighboring yard is very likely while one being inside a meth house (your example) isn't very likely at all.

 

About jumping over the fence, a point I heard someone make when this first hit the news was the officer didn't know if the entire yard was fenced or not and had no idea a dog was there. There was a fence blocking his path as he was going yard to yard. I have lived in places with fences around two sides of the property and have a neighbor currently with fencing around 3 sides of their property. So every yard isn't fenced in like Ft Knox.

 

But again it is easy to Monday Morning QB weeks and months after the issue.

 

To be clear I never said it was good that he shot the dog. Just that it was not unlawful for him to be there...maybe everyone will be happy and a judge will rule he was wrong and then everyone can celebrate.

I think it is even worse that he wasn't man enough to wait for the homeowner and at least try to explain himself and apologize.

 

I agree. I suspect the officer who shot the dog was hustled away quickly after the shooting. Police knew right away this wasn't going to turn out well.

 

When an officer fires his firearm they are often removed from the scene regardless of the situation so that they do not influence the investigation into the shooting. But I guess it is more fun to call him a coward not know what the procedure is.

Well In this case I don't think doors are or were getting kicked down, they don't even do that in suspected kidnapping cases without a warrant. A 3 year old roaming off and being in a neighboring yard is very likely while one being inside a meth house (your example) isn't very likely at all.

 

About jumping over the fence, a point I heard someone make when this first hit the news was the officer didn't know if the entire yard was fenced or not and had no idea a dog was there. There was a fence blocking his path as he was going yard to yard. I have lived in places with fences around two sides of the property and have a neighbor currently with fencing around 3 sides of their property. So every yard isn't fenced in like Ft Knox.

 

But again it is easy to Monday Morning QB weeks and months after the issue.

 

To be clear I never said it was good that he shot the dog. Just that it was not unlawful for him to be there...maybe everyone will be happy and a judge will rule he was wrong and then everyone can celebrate.

My guess is that it will play out as the law defines and everyone giving opinions here can quit speculating.

When an officer fires his firearm they are often removed from the scene regardless of the situation so that they do not influence the investigation into the shooting. But I guess it is more fun to call him a coward not know what the procedure is.

SLC police chief's comments just added fuel to the fire.

 

Salt Lake police shooting sparks large protest for victim: a dog named 'Geist' | Fox News

 

The "Justice for Geist" Facebook page is really attracting some attention.

 

https://www.facebook.com/JusticeforGeist

Well In this case I don't think doors are or were getting kicked down, they don't even do that in suspected kidnapping cases without a warrant. A 3 year old roaming off and being in a neighboring yard is very likely while one being inside a meth house (your example) isn't very likely at all.

 

About jumping over the fence, a point I heard someone make when this first hit the news was the officer didn't know if the entire yard was fenced or not and had no idea a dog was there. There was a fence blocking his path as he was going yard to yard. I have lived in places with fences around two sides of the property and have a neighbor currently with fencing around 3 sides of their property. So every yard isn't fenced in like Ft Knox.

 

But again it is easy to Monday Morning QB weeks and months after the issue.

 

To be clear I never said it was good that he shot the dog. Just that it was not unlawful for him to be there...maybe everyone will be happy and a judge will rule he was wrong and then everyone can celebrate.

 

You used a general situation to illustrate that you think a missing child is exigent circumstances that should allow the police to search inside of fenced in yards, etc. when they would not normally be allowed in those locations without a warrant or permission of the resident. I was trying to illustrate that just because I child goes missing that the 4th Amendment does not get suspended. If it did then the example that I gave could become the next step.

 

Getting back to this case, the officer used poor judgment pure and simple. If you look at the fence behind the house I don't think any reasonable person would think that it did not go all the way around the house. Even if he wasn't sure how long does it take to walk around the yard? This wasn't a 100 acre farm. It was connected to either side of his garage and was 4-6 high with brick posts. It wasn't the kind of fence that a 3 year old would have gotten through.

 

As for the Monday morning quarterbacking, well when you carry a gun and badge and have the ability to affect people's lives in both a positive and negative way the way that police officers do then they deserve that scrutiny. I'd hate to think the kind of country we'd live in if citizens did not question the actions of the police.

 

Perhaps it is a case of poor training of police officers. There have been a spate of recent videos/stories of officers shooting dogs. In one recent case a pair of Baltimore police officers placed a restraining hoop around a dog and then cut its throat. I realize that no one wants to get bitten but mailmen, meter readers, delivery men and others deal with dogs on an every day basis and you don't hear about them shooting them--especially in the owner's back yard.

 

As for the Monday morning quarterbacking, well when you carry a gun and badge and have the ability to affect people's lives in both a positive and negative way the way that police officers do then they deserve that scrutiny. I'd hate to think the kind of country we'd live in if citizens did not question the actions of the police.

 

 

Agreed.

I don't have any problems with his actions being questioned, I even said that a judge may find him guilty.

 

I do have an issue with people calling him a coward for leaving without knowing the procedure for handling the situation's like this.

 

I do have an issue with people calling him a coward for leaving without knowing the procedure for handling the situation's like this.

 

Police made a great decision in having him leave . Nothing positive would have come from him being there to talk to the distraught dog owner. It could have gotten ugly to the point that the dog owner may have had to be arrested. Good move.

While the ending sucks if my 3 year old was missing I would hope that an officer made every attempt to check a fenced yard by mine and not just skip over it b/c it was seemingly fenced too good for a kid to be there just b/c the owner wasn't home. On the same note if my yard is fenced and they need to hop the fence to find a missing 3 year old by all means hop that fence.

While the ending sucks if my 3 year old was missing I would hope that an officer made every attempt to check a fenced yard by mine and not just skip over it b/c it was seemingly fenced too good for a kid to be there just b/c the owner wasn't home. On the same note if my yard is fenced and they need to hop the fence to find a missing 3 year old by all means hop that fence.

You forgot the part where they shoot your family dog dead for barking at them...