No warrant necessary if police think you are destroying evidence

[Irving]

Supreme court ruled that the police can kick down your door if it sounds like you are destroying evidence.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...on-of-evidence

[Big Wall]

Ya, lovely news. I bet that won't be taken advantage of.

[cstone]

8 to 1 decision by SCOTUS. Exigent circumstance has been a long accepted exception to search warrant requirement.

If the officer outside hears what sounds like a brutal murder taking place behind the apartment door, do you think they should have to wait for a judge to sign a warrant before going through the door?

The exceptions are sometimes abused but the remedy is, any evidence seized after an unlawful search is tossed. Not much incentive to seize unusable evidence if you are trying to build a good case against criminals.

[jreifsch80]

So does the unusable evidence get "tossed" or give back to the person they were seized from? That would suck if they take away your guns claiming they are evidence for some trial then when they are deemed unusable or wrongfully seized they go straight to the smelting pot lol

[Irving]

If the officer outside hears what sounds like a brutal murder taking place behind the apartment door, do you think they should have to wait for a judge to sign a warrant before going through the door?

Please describe what "possible destruction of evidence" sounds like. A toilet flushing? In the news article on the radio, they kept using the example that if the police knock on your door, and you don't answer, but they hear movement behind the door, that can be construed as possible destruction of evidence.

Destruction of evidence, especially of illegal narcotics, shouldn't even be enough for a warrant in the first place, let alone kicking the door down.

The exceptions are sometimes abused but the remedy is, any evidence seized after an unlawful search is tossed. Not much incentive to seize unusable evidence if you are trying to build a good case against criminals.

The situation that spawned this court decision was when the police showed up to a house, they smelled marijuana. They knocked on the door and announced themselves. Instead of someone answering the door, they just heard movement in the house. Fearing that someone was destroying evidence, they kicked in the door, and found a guy sitting on his couch smoking a joint. They searched his house and found cocaine as well. Now that guy is in prison for 11 years. If they had called in a warrant, would it have just been for marijuana? Any type of drug? Anything illegal at all? Where do they draw the line? The good news! If you don't have a warrant, there is no "bad evidence" to throw out! Hooray.

[Byte Stryke]

8 to 1 decision by SCOTUS. Exigent circumstance has been a long accepted exception to search warrant requirement.

If the officer outside hears what sounds like a brutal murder taking place behind the apartment door, do you think they should have to wait for a judge to sign a warrant before going through the door?

Let some fucker kick in my door while I am playing BF2...
"Take that BIITCH!! *BLAM BLAM BLAM!*"
Its a video game with some really nice sound effects if you have the right speakers.


your taxes will go up that much more.


I think there needs to be a bit more than "I Heard something"

fer fucksake it could be a TV...

[OneGuy67]

Please describe what "possible destruction of evidence" sounds like. A toilet flushing? In the news article on the radio, they kept using the example that if the police knock on your door, and you don't answer, but they hear movement behind the door, that can be construed as possible destruction of evidence. Destruction of evidence, especially of illegal narcotics, shouldn't even be enough for a warrant in the first place, let alone kicking the door down. The situation that spawned this court decision was when the police showed up to a house, they smelled marijuana. They knocked on the door and announced themselves. Instead of someone answering the door, they just heard movement in the house. Fearing that someone was destroying evidence, they kicked in the door, and found a guy sitting on his couch smoking a joint. They searched his house and found cocaine as well. Now that guy is in prison for 11 years. If they had called in a warrant, would it have just been for marijuana? Any type of drug? Anything illegal at all? Where do they draw the line? The good news! If you don't have a warrant, there is no "bad evidence" to throw out! Hooray.

Toilet flushing? Possibly, depending upon the circumstances of how the officers were there. Illegal narcotics not enough in Stu/Irv's opinion to warrant getting a search warrant. That's your opinion, my friend.

If they had obtained a warrant, the warrant language would have also included any other item or substance that is illegal to possess and he would have been charged with the coke. In the article, it does mention that they didn't search for the coke, it was on the table in front of the suspect.

[Irving]

I know it is my opinion, but I happen to think that it is a pretty good one.

This is a pretty slippery slope. "If you don't have anything to hide, etc..." should only be an under handed technique that police use to try and scare teenagers into compliance, not an excuse to kick in someone's door.

[cstone]

I always hated going into people's houses. Most of them smelled bad and the kids were not well cared for and crying.

Don't want the po-po in your house? Don't piss off your neighbors. Almost every time I was in someone's house it was after receiving numerous calls from the neighbors.

Most cops would rather be parked behind the school, listening to the ball game.

Most patrol officers don't spend a lot of time applying for warrants. They are way to busy answering dispatch calls for service. That would be those pesky neighbors again calling.

If it's a search warrant, one planning decision is to enter a location occupied or unoccupied. I normally preferred unoccupied. Much less hassle. If it's an arrest warrant, then obviously you need to go where the body is.

As for can it be seized? Anything that is in plain sight, covered by the warrant or contraband. As for getting it back. If it is contraband, say goodbye, it was never legal to possess. If it is needed as evidence, it is kept until the case is over and normally the court will determine disposition of any evidence. If you want it back and it isn't one of the items described above (contraband or evidence) ask for it back. If you don't get it after asking nicely, get an attorney and go after the department or agency that is holding your property.

Properly disposing of evidence is one of the worst jobs in any department. If it is worth something, the people come to get it back or it gets auctioned. Then you are left with the mountains of stuff that is just junk that no one wants.

[Bailey Guns]

Exigent circumstances has been a valid law enforcement theory since before I started police work in the 80s. This is not new. It's used but it's relatively rare compared to searches done with a warrant. At least that was my experience.

A very thorough knowledge of 4th Amendment procedures was one of my best tools when I worked the street.