or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 50

post #736 of 6095
Even if they didn't believe you, they still would have left. They were just fishing. They were pissed you didn't open the door, but cops are busy enough that they're not going to hold a grudge over something like that. Flush the drugs and go back to sleep. They would have to get a search warrant to get in your house. If you've made it clear you don't want to talk to them, they aren't supposed to keep knocking either.

The lock wouldn't have stopped them if they wanted to do a BS "exigent circumstances" sweep, like they did, but a broken door jamb looks really bad. They just wouldn't do it for a fishing expedition.

If the cops are investigating you, don't talk to them. Don't put yourself in a position for abuses. For example, that gunshot residue test. They only need exactly one particle of residue to come back positive -- which there would have been because you were handling a gun that's covered in it.

And don't leave drugs or paraphernalia in your house in plain sight. C'mon!
post #737 of 6095
That's horseshit, there's thousands of warrantless break ins a year. The problem is the homeowner has no recourse. What's he gonna sue for, the $300 to replace the door? Juries are notoriously stingy on civil rights cases where there's no physical violence to the person. And that's assuming it survives summary judgment after the cop lies and claims he heard a baby crying and smelled weed.

And it doesn't even have to be warrantless to be bullshit. It'll take them all of five minutes to get a bullshit warrant based on their usual lies.
post #738 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Trust me; you're on their shit list due to raising the small amount of ruckus you already have. Cops do not like having their actions questions by civilians to their superiors. Drive carefully.

I did my best to avoid that, but thought I had some sort of duty to at least speak up and hear exactly what their reasoning was. I never mentioned that I had contacted an attorney, and I made it clear when I emailed the chief's office that I wasn't "reporting" the offers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


For example, that gunshot residue test. They only need exactly one particle of residue to come back positive -- which there would have been because you were handling a gun that's covered in it.

And don't leave drugs or paraphernalia in your house in plain sight. C'mon!

I wasn't worried about either one, to be honest. I believe I judged the situation correctly, and in hindsight I wouldn't have changed anything (other than putting the bowl away). I agreed to the swab based on the circumstances at that very moment. I'm confident that refusing it would have made the situation worse. It was pretty clear, in my mind, that they never intended to swab me in the first place. They asked just to see if I would refuse.
post #739 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I did my best to avoid that, but thought I had some sort of duty to at least speak up and hear exactly what their reasoning was. I never mentioned that I had contacted an attorney, and I made it clear when I emailed the chief's office that I wasn't "reporting" the offers.
I wasn't worried about either one, to be honest. I believe I judged the situation correctly, and in hindsight I wouldn't have changed anything (other than putting the bowl away). I agreed to the swab based on the circumstances at that very moment. I'm confident that refusing it would have made the situation worse. It was pretty clear, in my mind, that they never intended to swab me in the first place. They asked just to see if I would refuse.

If you didn't call 911 there is a good possibility that the police would have killed you, seeing that they saw you with a gun in your hands from out your window.

You are very fortunate things went the way it did.
post #740 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

I wasn't worried about either one, to be honest. I believe I judged the situation correctly, and in hindsight I wouldn't have changed anything (other than putting the bowl away). I agreed to the swab based on the circumstances at that very moment. I'm confident that refusing it would have made the situation worse. It was pretty clear, in my mind, that they never intended to swab me in the first place. They asked just to see if I would refuse.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard this--"I thought they'd leave me alone if said or did X." For all the talk about abuses, consent is how they really get you. Like how you consented to come outside. How'd that work out? Cops are masters of convincing people to do things that are against their interest.

If the cops are investigating you, don't talk to them. If they have enough evidence against you they won't believe a word you say. If they don't, then you can only give them more.
post #741 of 6095
Of course you shouldn't give consent, no ones saying that.
post #742 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Like how you consented to come outside. How'd that work out? Cops are masters of convincing people to do things that are against their interest.

If the cops are investigating you, don't talk to them. If they have enough evidence against you they won't believe a word you say. If they don't, then you can only give them more.

There's a good chance the situation could have been far worse had I not answered the door. I understand and appreciate your point, but I disagree in the sense that each situation demands different things and I feel that I judged this one correctly.
post #743 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

There's a good chance the situation could have been far worse had I not answered the door. I understand and appreciate your point, but I disagree in the sense that each situation demands different things and I feel that I judged this one correctly.

The cops were hell bent on getting in your home. As Harold falcon stated, they would have made up a story to get a warrant, or just bust down your door due to exegent circumstances. There is no way you were going to avoid having a gun in your face that night. All those "what you do when dealing with police" YouTube video goes out the window when you have nervous men with guns at your door.
post #744 of 6095
This one time my door was open, and I was watching TV in the living room... and these cops appeared out of nowhere. Cops just calmly walked in, and searched every room, and left. None of us said a word. It was all so nonchalant. Like they were shopping at Target.
post #745 of 6095
The only time cops have showed up at my place, they waited outside the already open door (we were unloading groceries and heading downstairs for a second trip...passed them on the way down not realizing they were coming to our floor). They stayed outside and seemed totally ok when I said I would prefer not to admit them--jokingly said "don't worry, we already swept the place and found your pot plants" and then left.

Of course...that was only for a noise complaint from a crazy-ass neighbor (we were out shopping when it was called in...and then we could hear her pleading with the cops that "I can still hear it!" when they were leaving)
post #746 of 6095
Yet another great reason to live in a gated community; cops cannot just drive or wander by.
post #747 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Yet another great reason to live in a gated community; cops cannot just drive or wander by.

Our community is gated but the local police have access codes.
post #748 of 6095
Serious question--where do you live that you are in a gated community and still feel so unsafe in your own home that you have to bring a firearm along to hang out downstairs at night?

Seems...unfortunate
post #749 of 6095
One of the houses I considered was on a "gated" street, which was nice, I guess, except that all someone would have to do is park on the next street over and walk through a yard to get to it. Not worth the extra.. was it $3k per year? Maybe more.
post #750 of 6095
Quote:
After her 7-year-old daughter, Liza, was diagnosed with an aggressive and generally fatal kind of brain tumor in 2011, Jennifer Scherr decided to treat the cancer with cannabis oil. At the time marijuana was not legal for medical use in Illinois, although a law authorizing a pilot program took effect this year. Scherr's father-in-law, Curtis Scherr, a Chicago police officer, nevertheless agreed to help her grow marijuana in the hope of prolonging his granddaughter's life. He obtained the high-intensity light bulbs Jennifer needed and stopped by the house periodically to check on the grow operation. But about a week after Liza died in July 2012, Curtis ratted out her grieving mother, filing a search warrant application in which he reported having seen 50 marijuana plants in Jennifer's basement. A state judge issued a warrant, which a dozen or so DEA agents used to search Jennifer's house on July 19. They did not find any contraband, since Jennifer had discarded the plants after Liza's death.

Between Curtis's marijuana cultivation assistance and his appalling betrayal of his daughter-in-law there was considerable acrimony over funeral plans, which seems to have been the officer's motive in seeking the search warrant. But according to a ruling issued last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the search did not violate Jennifer's Fourth Amendment rights. Regardless of his motive, the court said, Curtis had probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be discovered in a search of Jennifer's home, since marijuana was at the time illegal for all uses under both state and federal law.

Judge Richard Posner conceded that "Curtis's behavior, which culminated in the DEA's search of his daughter-in-law’s house, was, if it was as the complaint describes it, atrocious." Furthermore, the officer's failure to disclose his relationship to the suspect made his warrant application "misleadingly incomplete." Had Curtis been more forthcoming, Posner suggested, the search probably never would have happened:

Curtis was concealing from the judge asked to issue the search warrant information that if disclosed in the affidavit might well have doomed the application. Had the affidavit stated that the suspected possessor of the 50 marijuana plants was the affiant’s own daughter-in-law, the judge would almost certainly have asked Curtis what was going on that would induce him to accuse his own daughter-in-law of criminal behavior, and upon learning the details the judge probably would have told Curtis to "work things out" privately—that this wasn't a proper matter for a criminal proceeding.

Still, Posner wrote, "the law is settled...that a police officer's motive in applying for a warrant does not invalidate the warrant." He called that "a sensible rule, though distasteful when applied in a case like this." He added that Jennifer probably would have more success in pressing a state claim against Curtis for intentional infliction of emotional distress, since "there is little doubt (always assuming the truth of the allegations in the complaint) that Curtis Scherr intended to inflict severe emotional distress on his daughter-in-law and succeeded in doing so."

TLDR: Pig cop who helped his daughter in law grow pot for his dying granddaughter gets a search warrant for her after the granddaughter dies.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?