Aurora PD

If the gps indicated that the suspect entered an apartment building, could the police lock down the entire building and search every apartment without a warrant? I just dont know the law well enough - not trying to stir the pot here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

If the gps indicated that the suspect entered an apartment building, could the police lock down the entire building and search every apartment without a warrant? I just dont know the law well enough - not trying to stir the pot here.

---

You mean like Boston did with the whole friggin city after the marathon bombing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

You mean like Boston did with the whole friggin city after the marathon bombing?

---

But it was to protect the PEEple of Boston [facepalm]

There is a problem when everything turns into an exigent circumstance. It really starts putting a new meaning behind the old saying "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail!"

Colorado follows this interpretation defined in U.S. case law:

"Exigent Circumstances refer to situations that demands unusual or immediate action and this allows people to circumvent usual procedures. In other words emergency conditions. The circumstances are such that it would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt action is necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers. For example when a neighbor breaks through a window of a burning house to save someone inside.
These are situations in which a police officer can take immediate action to effectively make an arrest, search, or seizure for which probable cause exists. This can be done without first obtaining a warrant. The federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. S 3109 requires police officers to knock, announce and be refused entry before they break into a residence. However, exigent circumstances excuse noncompliance.
Exigent circumstances are said to exist when
(1) a person's life or safety is threatened
(2) a suspect's escape is imminent, or
(3) evidence is about to be removed or destroyed.
This is also termed as emergency circumstances or special circumstances."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranger353

Colorado follows this interpretation defined in U.S. case law:

"Exigent Circumstances refer to situations that demands unusual or immediate action and this allows people to circumvent usual procedures. In other words emergency conditions. The circumstances are such that it would cause a reasonable person to believe that prompt action is necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers. For example when a neighbor breaks through a window of a burning house to save someone inside.
These are situations in which a police officer can take immediate action to effectively make an arrest, search, or seizure for which probable cause exists. This can be done without first obtaining a warrant. The federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. S 3109 requires police officers to knock, announce and be refused entry before they break into a residence. However, exigent circumstances excuse noncompliance.
Exigent circumstances are said to exist when
(1) a person's life or safety is threatened
(2) a suspect's escape is imminent, or
(3) evidence is about to be removed or destroyed.
This is also termed as emergency circumstances or special circumstances."

---

You missed the point of my statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hound

You missed the point of my statement.

---

Nope, I didn't. This has been the standard for the past 20 years and has stood the test of SCOTUS review. It happens frequently if not daily and it always has, but it's just now being refocused on because of this specific event or incident in Aurora. Bottomline is based on the limited information provided by the tracking device at the time, they pursued the most cautious and expeditious course of action available at that moment and the officers had PC.

There is also plenty of case law that covers Exigent Circumstances that were created by the government or law enforcement agency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trot

Haven't read the entire thread.

But I use this exact scenario when I teach carry classes, when I go over exercise of rights.

In the situation, if you didn't consent, you would be harassed, but well trained P.D. will eventually let you go. If they didn't....
42 U.S.C. 1983! When they DIDN'T find any evidence of bank robbery, the department would be really sweating if you got a good attorney on it.

"Escape of a Fleeing felon" wouldn't hold up in the situation. If someone robs a bank, and they see them bust down the door of a house the can pursue it. If they detain 19 cars, well, self defeating argument there. Even if one is a felon, they already have proven 18 are not. So, less than 5% probable chance of them being a fleeing felon? Not good odds for a department. Win for rights violation if that line was crossed.

---

You did get my statement ;)