LEO Question

[Razrbk89]

I shouldn't bother responding..but here goes anyway.

On second thought..forget it. You'll never understand. You're blinded since your son is a LEO so nothing else matters.

And yes...I'm so illegal it's crazy. Everyone knows I have lots to hide

I’m with you on this one. I don’t want any law enforcement on me. There’s no reason for them to be on my property and I’d be especially peeved if they were snooping on my neighbors like the OPs situation. After demanding that they get off my property, I’d immediately notify my neighbors that they were being harassed.

[Wile E.]

It's all fine and dandy with them doing such UNTIL they find an old park sign or something stupid on your property and you get busted. In other words you have zero to gain by allowing them access. Sure in a nice world it would be great to play nice with everyone. Go ahead and see how long it lasts.

In other words, keep the gate locked.

I tend to agree with this right here. I don't see this as disrespectful toward cops, and I certainly don't see how this can be turned into a guilt trip of "when you need them you'll be calling them..." There is no reason to subject yourself to unnecessary search, just in case you do have an "old park sign" or even something more questionable than that. Also, if you know you're not hurting anyone, there's no argument that opening your property to search cuts down on crime.This video is from a law school and gives a good summary of the reasons why it is unwise to interact unnecessarily with the police, and even includes the perspective of a detective (who agrees). Personally, I have nothing but respect for police/LEO, and yet I will do everything I can to avoid interacting with them for the reasons laid out in the video. As stated in an earlier post, you have nothing to gain.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE"]Don't Talk to the Police - YouTube[/ame]


Edit: Sorry, this doesn't really answer the OP but still worth discussing

[Black Ice]

.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Uncle Saggy]

Let the police search anything they want to, any time they want to and they can put a serious dent in any crimes.

Do you really mean this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tvc184]

Do you really mean this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely!

In the context it was intended.

Go back and look at the highlighted text I was answering and the entire response.

[Thumper]

So a normal privacy gate in a neighborhood being open to your back yard allows free entry to police? Not being sarcastic just trying to learn.

So when your house is on fire
they have to stay outside the lock gate? I'd give them a set of keys, or at least install a key box they have access to.

[sweetinlow660]

You need to read the story when the guy hit the owl in his truck.

And would you really believe the police are using your property to find your neighbors doing something bad? And NOT looking at you?

Now that's laughable.

Yes I would believe the police were watching my neighbor and not me as I have no reason for them to be watching me. I would however want to be contacted prior to them using my property for surveillance purposes if it was not an immediate response situation.

*EDIT* For the record I am a LEO myself so my opinion my seem biased but I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing with you and your opinion of not wanting it to happen on your property. I'm in line with several of previous posts with the opinion that the less involvement they have with LE the better. Prior to becoming an officer I had never spoke with a LEO outside of a couple traffic stops or the occasional good morning to the local Police Chief in the town I grew up in. I was simply answering the question you posed.

I think the biggest issue that good law abiding citizens have with a lot of LEOs is not WHAT LE CAN or CAN NOT do, but more with WHAT LE SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do. I've found in the 10 + years of doing this job that my attitude and the manner in which I approach people at the initial contact dictates how the entire interaction is going to go.

[BoWayne]

I can give it my spin....



Open Fields - generally not protected by the 4th Amendment. It is not considered “effects” under SCOTUS interpretation of the 4th Amendment.



Curtilage - Grounds like open fields however it is so close to and used as part of a dwelling and living space, that it is generally protected under the 4th Amendment. A person can live on 50 acres but the curtilage is the area considered the living area. It is on a case by case basis but things like, swing sets, tables, patios, well kept/mowed grass, privacy or chain link fence etc. If it is part of the living space that is routinely used by the family, it is probably curtilage.



Trespassing signs - from the cases I have read, merely having a no trespassing sign does necessarily restrict an officer from merely knocking on the door. A locked gate does. A person is free not to answer the door if an officer does knock.



Exigent (emergency) circumstances - court rulings usually give the police the ability to do almost anything without a warrant...... if the situation is serious and there simply isn’t a couple of hours available to get a warrant. Probably the most protected area under the 4th Amendment is inside of a home. But even then if the situation calls for it, a home came be entered without a warrant. Such a case is Brigham City v. Stuart where the police entered a home and ended up arresting the homeowner for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I believe the police went to a home on a loud party complaint. Looking through slats in a privacy fence, they saw underaged drinking. Having witnessed what appeared to be a crime, the police entered the back yard. Through the glass patio doors, they then could see a disturbance and then several people appearing to strike a teen. The police entered under the emergency of stopping a serious assault. The SC of

Utah actually ruled against the officers, saying that witnessing a possible serious injury wasn’t justification to enter (huh?).... to possibly save someones life?? Yep... but... A unanimous SCOTUS said, SC of Utah, what in the heck were you thinking? Sure the cops can enter without a warrant to stop possible serious injury. While there they used evidence of the underage drinking which was a misdemeanor but the emergency entry wasn’t for a misdemeanor so anything inadvertently seen can be used as evidence. That brings up the Plain View Doctrine (PVD).



PVD - In common English plain view means that you can see it openly no matter the circumstances. In the PVD for seizing items, it requires three things. In PV is not considered a search and therefore not a 4th Amendment violation. To be in PV the three requirements are, the police had to be in that location lawfully, the item viewed could not be manipulated at all by the police AND.. it had to be “immediately apparent” that the item was contraband. In my opinion, at the moment something was seen by the police, they had to know almost instantly that it was criminal. For example, under the PVD the police cannot pick up a pack of cigarettes to see if someone hid marijuana inside. The pack can be openly seen but there is no indication of anything illegal “at that moment”. Walking up to a car and seeing what appears to be a sawed off shotgun with a 10” barrel (no question that it wasn’t 18”) would be valid under the PVD.



So....



I think the police can go through an unlocked gate under most circumstances. Add to it shots heard in the area. I don’t think there is any 4th Amendment violation.



Anything they can see in the open that is not directly associated with the living area of the house is unprotected as far as unlawful searches.



The surveillance of neighbor’s property from another person’s property without consent?? That one is tougher and there may be clear cut case law but I am not aware of any. The neighbor likely has no standing to complain as he has no right to privacy in the neighbor’s yard where the police are. I think the owner can ask the police to leave if they have no legitimate (exigent) business there but I am not really sure that the police are violating anything if they entered through an unlocked gate unless they are asked to leave or unless there is an exigent circumstance.



Clear as mud??

Well said... and my hats off to you for teaching that. I teach Family Violence and Assaultive offenses in our academy.

LE here... so I will try not to come across as bias to the OP or anyone else.

Every-time we have ever needed to utilize someone’s private property, we asked and were granted permission. ( that is not including exigent circumstances).

For the Sheriffs to be using your property or anyone’s for that matter, I would want an explanation as well. Hopefully they can explain it to you sufficiently.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Huntingfool]

Yes I would believe the police were watching my neighbor and not me as I have no reason for them to be watching me. I would however want to be contacted prior to them using my property for surveillance purposes if it was not an immediate response situation.

*EDIT* For the record I am a LEO myself so my opinion my seem biased but I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing with you and your opinion of not wanting it to happen on your property. I'm in line with several of previous posts with the opinion that the less involvement they have with LE the better. Prior to becoming an officer I had never spoke with a LEO outside of a couple traffic stops or the occasional good morning to the local Police Chief in the town I grew up in. I was simply answering the question you posed.

I think the biggest issue that good law abiding citizens have with a lot of LEOs is not WHAT LE CAN or CAN NOT do, but more with WHAT LE SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do. I've found in the 10 + years of doing this job that my attitude and the manner in which I approach people at the initial contact dictates how the entire interaction is going to go.

First thanks for your service. I agree totally with your final paragraph. How an LEO approaches and treats anyone they come in contact with can dictate the outcome.

BUT I will also add that the same goes for the citizen. THEIR attitude will also most certainly also dictate how the interaction goes. If someone has done nothing wrong and treats the LEO with respect then I would guess 99% of the time it ends well.

[Jon B]

I think the biggest issue that good law abiding citizens have with a lot of LEOs is not WHAT LE CAN or CAN NOT do, but more with WHAT LE SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do. I've found in the 10 + years of doing this job that my attitude and the manner in which I approach people at the initial contact dictates how the entire interaction is going to go.[/QUOTE]

I have about the same years of service and feel exactly the same way.

[one66stang]

Thank you again for the info.

I can give it my spin....

Open Fields - generally not protected by the 4th Amendment. It is not considered “effects” under SCOTUS interpretation of the 4th Amendment.

Curtilage - Grounds like open fields however it is so close to and used as part of a dwelling and living space, that it is generally protected under the 4th Amendment. A person can live on 50 acres but the curtilage is the area considered the living area. It is on a case by case basis but things like, swing sets, tables, patios, well kept/mowed grass, privacy or chain link fence etc. If it is part of the living space that is routinely used by the family, it is probably curtilage.

Trespassing signs - from the cases I have read, merely having a no trespassing sign does necessarily restrict an officer from merely knocking on the door. A locked gate does. A person is free not to answer the door if an officer does knock.

Exigent (emergency) circumstances - court rulings usually give the police the ability to do almost anything without a warrant...... if the situation is serious and there simply isn’t a couple of hours available to get a warrant. Probably the most protected area under the 4th Amendment is inside of a home. But even then if the situation calls for it, a home came be entered without a warrant. Such a case is Brigham City v. Stuart where the police entered a home and ended up arresting the homeowner for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. I believe the police went to a home on a loud party complaint. Looking through slats in a privacy fence, they saw underaged drinking. Having witnessed what appeared to be a crime, the police entered the back yard. Through the glass patio doors, they then could see a disturbance and then several people appearing to strike a teen. The police entered under the emergency of stopping a serious assault. The SC of
Utah actually ruled against the officers, saying that witnessing a possible serious injury wasn’t justification to enter (huh?).... to possibly save someones life?? Yep... but... A unanimous SCOTUS said, SC of Utah, what in the heck were you thinking? Sure the cops can enter without a warrant to stop possible serious injury. While there they used evidence of the underage drinking which was a misdemeanor but the emergency entry wasn’t for a misdemeanor so anything inadvertently seen can be used as evidence. That brings up the Plain View Doctrine (PVD).

PVD - In common English plain view means that you can see it openly no matter the circumstances. In the PVD for seizing items, it requires three things. In PV is not considered a search and therefore not a 4th Amendment violation. To be in PV the three requirements are, the police had to be in that location lawfully, the item viewed could not be manipulated at all by the police AND.. it had to be “immediately apparent” that the item was contraband. In my opinion, at the moment something was seen by the police, they had to know almost instantly that it was criminal. For example, under the PVD the police cannot pick up a pack of cigarettes to see if someone hid marijuana inside. The pack can be openly seen but there is no indication of anything illegal “at that moment”. Walking up to a car and seeing what appears to be a sawed off shotgun with a 10” barrel (no question that it wasn’t 18”) would be valid under the PVD.

So....

I think the police can go through an unlocked gate under most circumstances. Add to it shots heard in the area. I don’t think there is any 4th Amendment violation.

Anything they can see in the open that is not directly associated with the living area of the house is unprotected as far as unlawful searches.

The surveillance of neighbor’s property from another person’s property without consent?? That one is tougher and there may be clear cut case law but I am not aware of any. The neighbor likely has no standing to complain as he has no right to privacy in the neighbor’s yard where the police are. I think the owner can ask the police to leave if they have no legitimate (exigent) business there but I am not really sure that the police are violating anything if they entered through an unlocked gate unless they are asked to leave or unless there is an exigent circumstance.

Clear as mud??

[one66stang]

Yes I would believe the police were watching my neighbor and not me as I have no reason for them to be watching me. I would however want to be contacted prior to them using my property for surveillance purposes if it was not an immediate response situation.

*EDIT* For the record I am a LEO myself so my opinion my seem biased but I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing with you and your opinion of not wanting it to happen on your property. I'm in line with several of previous posts with the opinion that the less involvement they have with LE the better. Prior to becoming an officer I had never spoke with a LEO outside of a couple traffic stops or the occasional good morning to the local Police Chief in the town I grew up in. I was simply answering the question you posed.

I think the biggest issue that good law abiding citizens have with a lot of LEOs is not WHAT LE CAN or CAN NOT do, but more with WHAT LE SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do. I've found in the 10 + years of doing this job that my attitude and the manner in which I approach people at the initial contact dictates how the entire interaction is going to go.

This struck a cord with me in a good way. Thank you for your view.

[one66stang]

Yes I would believe the police were watching my neighbor and not me as I have no reason for them to be watching me. I would however want to be contacted prior to them using my property for surveillance purposes if it was not an immediate response situation.

*EDIT* For the record I am a LEO myself so my opinion my seem biased but I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing with you and your opinion of not wanting it to happen on your property. I'm in line with several of previous posts with the opinion that the less involvement they have with LE the better. Prior to becoming an officer I had never spoke with a LEO outside of a couple traffic stops or the occasional good morning to the local Police Chief in the town I grew up in. I was simply answering the question you posed.

I think the biggest issue that good law abiding citizens have with a lot of LEOs is not WHAT LE CAN or CAN NOT do, but more with WHAT LE SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do. I've found in the 10 + years of doing this job that my attitude and the manner in which I approach people at the initial contact dictates how the entire interaction is going to go.

This happened several years ago and the way it was handled left a bad taste in my mouth then, but out of respect for the law I didn't raise any stink on it other than with the officers involved.

I will add this, I have a two track road down to the barns. He was pulled off in the pasture a good 100 yards. On this occasion he did open a gate and went in and closed the gate behind him.


When it happened. I parked across my gate and walked to to the Sheriff Tahoe to the drivers side window. The officer was looking thru binoculars at a house across the back fence. I stood at the window for maybe 10-15 secs before he put the binos down. When he put them down he looked over at me and then for the next 10-15 secs just set there not rolling down the window just sitting there looking the same direction he was watching. I knocked on the window and made the roll down motion and he rolled his window down . Immediately in a very irritated tone said . Who are you! As most anyone would be at that point I'm sure I was a little irritated myself. I said I'm the land owner and you need to tell me what you are doing. He replied with Don't worry about it. So I said you need to leave. He rolled up his window and drove off to the gate and waited while I moved my truck.

I went in the house and sat and thought a bit. I went and got in my truck and made a loop in the area and found the same deputy parked sitting next to another deputy so I pulled up. When I pulled up the deputy that was in the pasture drove off. I got out and talked to the other deputy and he is the one that told me they were watching a house out the back that had suspicious activity. I asked him if it was drug related and he said yes. I told him that if they needed to use my pasture O had no issue with it but they would need to ask before hand and told him that if they did use it that the officer that was in it before wasn't to be back there again unless we spoke again. He said he understood.

I never made a complaint or anything. I just let it be.

[Huntingfool]

I tend to agree with this right here. I don't see this as disrespectful toward cops, and I certainly don't see how this can be turned into a guilt trip of "when you need them you'll be calling them..." There is no reason to subject yourself to unnecessary search, just in case you do have an "old park sign" or even something more questionable than that. Also, if you know you're not hurting anyone, there's no argument that opening your property to search cuts down on crime.This video is from a law school and gives a good summary of the reasons why it is unwise to interact unnecessarily with the police, and even includes the perspective of a detective (who agrees). Personally, I have nothing but respect for police/LEO, and yet I will do everything I can to avoid interacting with them for the reasons laid out in the video. As stated in an earlier post, you have nothing to gain.

Don't Talk to the Police - YouTube


Edit: Sorry, this doesn't really answer the OP but still worth discussing

Still boils down to this - IF YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG THEN WHY WOULD YOU NOT TALK TO THE POLICE? I am 66 years old and never been in trouble with the law - if an LEO showed up at my door to ask questions I would GLADLY be respectful and honestly answer any question they asked me. I have ZERO to hide -

What a citizen "Has to gain" is helping the first responders to do their job!

This attitude is what is contributing to the loss of respect towards the first responders who protect us - makes me sick to my stomach. Sorry I get a little worked up over this stuff but in todays world when I see folks who basically are saying "do not comply with law enforcement or Do not respond to law enforcements questions" it is pretty upsetting - I ride out with my LEO son and see FIRST HAND what they deal with day to day -

[dgilbert]

People get butt hurt for anything now days, the generation.