# Could the police go into private property in this case?



## ironpony (Sep 29, 2019)

For my story, a police officer on patrol, is driving and spots men in masks and gloves, running down the street.  He feels a crime may be in progress, so he decides to stop them.  They resist and he detains and cuffs one of them for trying to get away.  As he is cuffing him, he notices the others change direction and run back in the direction they came from into a house nearby.  The officer places the cuffed man in his patrol car.

Since the house is nearby, he requests for back up, but does he have the legal right to go into the house to see what they are up to since they are running from something?


----------



## Ma'am (Sep 30, 2019)

I don't know, ironpony but I just googled "police procedurals for writers" and found some books as well as some free stuff on blogs etcetera. Maybe that would help you out better with the police questions or at least be a good backup when no one on here knows the answers you're looking for.


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 30, 2019)

I think ironpony should become a cop. Then we could ask him loads of questions on police procedures. 

I'm serious, by the way, it's obviously there's an interest.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 30, 2019)

Oh okay, I actually have a couple of police procedure books for writers.  It's just that the situations in those books are not exactly like mine, and I thought that the peculiar circumstances of mine, might have different rules therefore.


----------



## velo (Sep 30, 2019)

This is an interesting scenario fraught with subjectivity.  Without any further information can the police get probable cause from running down the street in ski masks?  Is it cold out?  Is it weather in which a reasonable person (using the oft-referenced legal standard) would wear a mask?  If so do they also have coats and other weather appropriate (are the gloves winter gloves or some other type?) garb on?  

Once stopped, physical resistance is going to get you in the back of the car no matter what.  The others going into the house, I think in this case the cop absolutely would pursue them and they'd have to sort out probable cause and all that later with the lawyers.  

There are a lot of literary possibilities here.


----------



## Amnesiac (Sep 30, 2019)

Agreed. This constitutes probable cause, and I would wait until backup arrived if I were by myself, but yes if there's a reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place, the police may absolutely enter. Case in point: The neighbor calls and reports hearing a man and woman fighting. I show up and knock at the door. Inside, I can hear screaming and and all sorts of commotion. Guess what? The house is MINE, now. I will be going in, and I will likely be taking _someone_​ to jail.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 30, 2019)

Oh ok thanks.  Well in this case no witnesses call the police and the cop just sees them in masks, running, when its not cold enough for ski masks.  The gloves they wear are just thin ones to prevent finger prints.  Perhaps surgical type gloves.


----------



## Sam (Oct 1, 2019)

ironpony said:


> In this case no witnesses call the police and the cop just sees them in masks, running, when its not cold enough for ski masks.



Yes, because people totally wear ski masks when it gets too cold.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 1, 2019)

Sam said:


> Yes, because people totally wear ski masks when it gets too cold.



Probably depends on the climate. Great Lakes area in wintertime, much of Canada, Alaska some version of a ski mask is fairly normal in wintertime when cycling or doing anything outside. I've seen them.

Not so much the plain all-black, three-hole, 1980's IRA type, though. It always makes me laugh when I see whole gangs wearing those on TV shows. Like, where do you even buy those in bulk?


----------



## Princesisto (Oct 1, 2019)

Actually, the answer will depend on the jurisdiction in which it occurred. You have to look at the Police Act in most countries or in America court decisions on the Constitutional prohibitions against search and seizure. In England, for example, having arrested a person for an indictable offence, a policeman, with the authority of an Inspector or above, can enter the premises of the person's residence to search for evidence. 

I am a little unsure whether or not the arrest was valid here. Running down the road in a ski mask, even in hot weather, is not an indictable offence. Burglary is but there is no mention of anyone else's property (e.g. money in a bank bag) or burglary tools being found in their possession. So what is the basis of the arrest? But if the arrest was valid, then the entry of the arrested person's premises would be valid.

Absolutely, he should not go in alone as this is risky for him and also gives him no witnesses of what he is doing in there. He needs the authority of an Inspector, who will almost certainly send additional Constables or, if he has doubts about the validity of the arrest, simply seek a search warrant.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 1, 2019)

Princesisto said:


> I am a little unsure whether or not the arrest was valid here. Running down the road in a ski mask, even in hot weather, is not an indictable offence. Burglary is but there is no mention of anyone else's property (e.g. money in a bank bag) or burglary tools being found in their possession. So what is the basis of the arrest? But if the arrest was valid, then the entry of the arrested person's premises would be valid.



Whether it's an indictable offense or not to wear a ski mask isn't really relevant. 

It's obviously not an indictable offense to wear a ski mask in hot weather - they aren't illegal, at least not in the US - but ski masks are in the gray area where they can arouse reasonable suspicion without technically being illegal. It's kind of like how it's not technically illegal to walk down the street with something body-shaped slung over your shoulder wrapped in a sheet that appears to be bloodstained. That's not illegal, it could be just a pillow and sheet combo stained in cranberry juice, but it lends itself to reasonable suspicion.

Either way, resisting arrest is absolutely illegal: They were 'criminals' the moment they made that decision. A lawyer could fight that later on, but in the moment the officer has the prerogative to make the call.

With that in mind, if 'criminals' run into a house, the officer IS allowed to go after them, even if it means entering without a warrant. This is called the 'hot pursuit' exception. This only applies to the US, by the way. No idea about the rules in other countries. I believe in Europe the police tend to have even more discretion but am not sure.

 If the officer has _reason to believe_ a crime is being committed (and fleeing the scene of a crime is a crime - the crime as previously noted is resisting arrest in this case - and that's assuming there are no other grounds for probable cause here) then he/she would be absolutely within their rights to pursue them into a private residence. Whether or not they would is certainly up for debate. I believe usual procedure, especially in a gang scenario, would be to call for backup, but they definitely can do that.

So yes, the scenario being described is probably lawful. It certainly happens frequently.


----------



## velo (Oct 1, 2019)

Lucky, I know you've studied law...it's my understanding that if there was no reasonable suspicion in the first place, as ruled on by a judge, doesn't everything that follows as a direct result of that become fruit of the poisonous tree?  (the resisting would likely still stick, of course) 

A good lawyer might be able to argue the Terry stop even though the scenario is definitely suspicious...but maybe that has no bearing on the story.


----------



## Amnesiac (Oct 1, 2019)

And I suggested awaiting backup, because a lone cop pursuing multiple suspects into a building or residence, is a total rookie move, and will likely get you smoked or landed in the hospital.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 1, 2019)

velo said:


> Lucky, I know you've studied law...it's my understanding that if there was no reasonable suspicion in the first place, as ruled on by a judge, doesn't everything that follows as a direct result of that become fruit of the poisonous tree?  (the resisting would likely still stick, of course)
> 
> A good lawyer might be able to argue the Terry stop even though the scenario is definitely suspicious...but maybe that has no bearing on the story.



Velo, definitely. It’s a problem because there’s no definition as to what counts as reasonable suspicion. 

The most common example is an officer claiming they smelled marijuana during a traffic stop to get into a suspects car - another example of where a warrant would normally be needed but in a probable cause scenario can be waived. How do you prove if a smell is present? You can’t. Huge discretion is given to law enforcement and even if it’s overturned later (which it hardly ever is - I don’t remember in three years of criminal casework a single instance of a case being overturned based on an officer’s assertion of reasonable suspicion being called into question) the damage is done.

For that reason we used to advise clients not to rely solely on warrants or on 4A generally for the protection of personal privacy. Search warrants are relatively easy to obtain anyway and even without one, it’s insanely difficult to stop a smart and highly motivated officer from blowing through your rights in spite of what Sovereign Citizens like to think. If you really don’t want your drugs/guns/illegal porn/dead bodies poked over, either buy a safe or, better yet, don’t possess them in the first place.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 1, 2019)

Well I wrote it so that he hears a woman gasping, from the outside and he goes in because of that, cause he feels a sense of immediate danger for her perhaps.  But is that not enough of a reason?  Mainly I just need the pursuit to continue for the plot, so is there any reason for him to continue?  What if the suspects were wearing clothes similar to past crimes, that were being investigated, and the description is similar, is that enough to continue?

If he calls and waits for back up or a search warrant, they will be gone by then, so is there anything I can to have him continue immediately?  The men in the masks were chasing someone, could that be more probable cause, if he sees that they are chasing a man?  However, I don't want the officer to recognize the man being chased, cause this is a surprise character for later, so I could have him see that they are chasing someone, as long as he doesn't see that person's face, and doesn't know who it is.

As for getting a warrant though, I don't think he will be able too.  If he doesn't have probably cause to chase after them, then he probably won't even be able to get a warrant therefore.

As for the idea of fruit of the poisonous tree, in the story, I want the cop to rescue a woman who is held captive by them.   Later I want this woman to be a witness to their crimes, and the villains go after her to silence her and stop her from talking.  But if the crime is fruit of the poisonous tree, that means that she is part of the poisonous tree as well, and her testimony will not be admissible as well, hence they have no reason to go after her.  So therefore, I don't think fruit of the poisonous tree can work, since I want her to be a threat to them.


----------



## Trollheart (Oct 1, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> Agreed. This constitutes probable cause, and I would wait until backup arrived if I were by myself, but yes if there's a reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place, the police may absolutely enter. Case in point: The neighbor calls and reports hearing a man and woman fighting. I show up and knock at the door. Inside, I can hear screaming and and all sorts of commotion. Guess what? The house is MINE, now. I will be going in, and I will likely be taking _someone_​ to jail.



Hah! And you're not even a cop! :lol: Remind me never to mess with _you!
_
From my very limited understanding of this, isn't it true that anything - search, arrest etc - conducted without a warrant can be ruled as inadmissible in court, and therefore put the case in jeopardy? Quite happy to be proven wrong.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 1, 2019)

Well I read that a cop can detain someone if they have probable cause to believe that a crime has happened, but in my case, when men in masks are chasing someone down the street, and that's all the cop sees, is that enough for probable cause of a crime to detain one of them, and then pursue after the others?


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 1, 2019)

ironpony said:


> when men in masks are chasing someone down the street, and that's all the cop sees, is that enough for probable cause of a crime to detain one of them, and then pursue after the others?



Yes, witnessing someone chasing after someone else wearing a ski mask (or not wearing a ski mask, actually) would be probable cause.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 1, 2019)

Oh okay, what I meant to say, is that the chasers are the ones in the masks, not the man being chased.  But after he detains the one, the others run back into the house they came from.  Does he have probable cause to go into their private property?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 2, 2019)

Wow...listening to that conversation made me 10 IQ points dumber.

Yes, absolutely, a buncha guys running around in ski masks is grounds for police to 10-29 them (wants-warrants check, also known as an FI, or field interview.) If he pops a Frank on any of them (felony warrant) then someone is going to jail. Yes, the conduct described in the original post would be sufficient for the police officer to stop them and begin asking hard questions.

You should listen to Amnesiac, he speaks from experience.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 3, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, what I meant to say, is that the chasers are the ones in the masks, not the man being chased.  But after he detains the one, the others run back into the house they came from.  Does he have probable cause to go into their private property?



Asked and answered. It depends on the situation and in reality he probably wouldn't do it, but typically yes - in a hot pursuit situation with a criminal believed to be immediately dangerous, if they run into a house that is allowed. Because if you don't do that, if you just shrug and say 'Oh well", who the hell knows? Are there other people in that house? Children? All these things are factors the police would need to determine the relative likelihood of, and weigh against 4A to decide whether they are justified in taking that action.

The real question is whether the criminal would be sufficiently dangerous and their arrest pressing enough for the cop to believe he had no choice but to enter the house. I do know most cops are pretty wary about entering a domicile alone and tend to follow the rules (unless they're Amber Guyger obviously...) and this is primarily for safety reasons but also because it _could_ potentially lead to contention in court _if_ it turned out the officer was operating under false interpretation regarding what was happening. They _can_ do it, but they probably wouldn't - suddenly it's a policy issue more than it is a legal one. My only point is criminals with brains being chased by the police wouldn't be smart to test the theory of 'no warrant'. I've met many a felon/sovereign citizen/freeman-on-the-land who wanted to bitch about warrants after the fact. Judges will generally side with law enforcement whenever they can over some idiot who thought 4A protected him from operating a sex trafficking ring out of his Missouri trailer.

But I'm only talking about the theory of American law, not its application. Am not an expert on police standard operating procedures or anything - ask Amnesiac or somebody who is - but IMO far more likely they would just surround the house with a SWAT team or whatever and negotiate through the door for them to come out.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 3, 2019)

> Wow...listening to that conversation made me 10 IQ points dumber.
> 
> Yes, absolutely, a buncha guys running around in ski masks is grounds for police to 10-29 them (wants-warrants check, also known as an FI, or field interview.) If he pops a Frank on any of them (felony warrant) then someone is going to jail. Yes, the conduct described in the original post would be sufficient for the police officer to stop them and begin asking hard questions.
> 
> You should listen to Amnesiac, he speaks from experience.



Oh okay, thanks. When you say warrant, do you mean search warrant or arrest warrant?  What do you mean by 'pop a Frank'?


----------



## Amnesiac (Oct 9, 2019)

Trollheart said:


> Hah! And you're not even a cop! :lol: Remind me never to mess with _you!
> _
> From my very limited understanding of this, isn't it true that anything - search, arrest etc - conducted without a warrant can be ruled as inadmissible in court, and therefore put the case in jeopardy? Quite happy to be proven wrong.



Actually, I was with a county sheriff's department for about 6 years. I was a road deputy, and I hauled my share of domestics to the county facilities. If there's reason to believe that there is a crime in progress, or if I knock on the door because I have reason to believe that a suspect is hiding in the house, and in the process of searching, I happen to see a bunch of heroin and coke lying on the coffee table, I absolutely can arrest the individuals and seize their contraband. Absolutely legal.


----------



## Amnesiac (Oct 9, 2019)

Also, detaining someone and actually arresting someone: Two different things. I can detain someone and then release them, or I can detain them and it may turn into an arrest.

Domestic assaults are often like this. Case in point: We got a call that a man had hit his wife and then took off in his truck. I show up, interview the wife, and she shows me some tiny bruises that are nearly faded, and anyway, they look like she barked her shins on the coffee table. Then I inspect her scalp for lumps or any other trauma. Nothing. A few minutes later, her husband shows up. I go out and detain him. I interview him, and he has a huge red welt on his forehead, and a big lump, besides. He said that the two of them had been arguing, when she hauled off and punched him in the forehead. Realizing that things were only going to get worse, he just got the hell out of there.

I told the husband to just hang out, and then I went back in the house and told the woman, "I'm going to arrest you for domestic assault, but because your kids are in the yard, I'd like to not put you in handcuffs. Nice and easy, let's just walk out to my car." 

She acted like she understood, so out the door we went. At that point, she starts wailing, "Oh hell! He's taking me to jail!!"

Fine. We'll do it the hard way. I handcuffed her, put her in the car, and off we went to the county jail. She was wailing and crying the entire way, until we got about a half-mile from the jail, when she abruptly turned off the hysterics and said, real calm, "I'm gonna kick your ass."

I didn't respond, but I thought, _Whatever you say, Sybil!"

/smh... 
_


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 9, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, thanks. When you say warrant, do you mean search warrant or arrest warrant?  What do you mean by 'pop a Frank'?




If a cop is busy babysitting potential suspects, he may call in his 10-29 to the dispatcher to have them run a wants/warrants check. If they find no wants/warrants they will reply "negative 10-29."

But if they DO find an outstanding warrant, then they will ask the officer if they are 10-101 (this code varies from department to department) which is code for "I got some private stuff to share, are you in a cornfield?"
Once the officer indicates it is okay to proceed (10-106) the dispatcher will tell them that there is an outstanding Frank warrant (frank for felony). They do this because if you do it over an open mike, some suspects will bolt. Also, it is confidential information, so it should not be broadcast to everybody at the scene.

When I refer to a wants/warrant, I am not talking about a search warrant, but instead an arrest warrant.
Often people 10-29ed during routine traffic stops have FTA warrants (failure to appear) or in some cases they have had felony charges filed against them for a crime. 


Also, some departments have a specific code beside saying "negative 10-29" They may have a code for misdemeanor warrant, and another for misdemeanor warrants. Not all 10-codes are universal. 

When I was with the Sheriffs department we instituted a code 10-3, which was a fancy way of saying "non-emergency traffic STFU." We used it during backup calls and major crisis in the jail as a way to tell people to stay off the air so we could coordinate the emergency at hand (otherwise you had people calling for dumb chit in the middle of a riot or medical emergency.)


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 9, 2019)

Funny radio story.
When I was new I called in a "radio check" just to see if my radio was working.
The guy in Master Control that night was this old asshole named Benson. He would reply "I copy you *2 by 2*"

Well, the proper reply for a radio check is "*5 by 5*." 
*WTF is 2x2?*
But the other officers told me to ask him.  So I call him on the intercom and ask what 2 by 2 meant.
"Too fucking loud, too fucking often!" and he'd hang up abruptly.
I turned around to find the rest of the officers laughing at my noob mistake.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 9, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> If a cop is busy babysitting potential suspects, he may call in his 10-29 to the dispatcher to have them run a wants/warrants check. If they find no wants/warrants they will reply "negative 10-29."
> 
> But if they DO find an outstanding warrant, then they will ask the officer if they are 10-101 (this code varies from department to department) which is code for "I got some private stuff to share, are you in a cornfield?"
> Once the officer indicates it is okay to proceed (10-106) the dispatcher will tell them that there is an outstanding Frank warrant (frank for felony). They do this because if you do it over an open mike, some suspects will bolt. Also, it is confidential information, so it should not be broadcast to everybody at the scene.
> ...



Oh, okay, well the cop cannot ask if there is an arrest warrant, in this case, since he doesn't know who the people are, right?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 10, 2019)

Of course he does...he just stopped them, and demanded their ID.
Guys running around in the night, in a residential neighborhood, wearing ski masks, are probable cause for an FI. A reasonable man would conclude that they were up to no good (possibly burglary).
He would detain them, ask what they were doing, and 10-29 'em. 
At least the ones he catches.

Even if they had no ID, he would ask their name & DOB, likely recording that info in the notebook he carries in his shirt pocket.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 10, 2019)

Oh okay, i can't see them having id or giving their names until getting to the station though.


----------



## Amnesiac (Oct 10, 2019)

You might think so, but 95% of people just give up their info, when push comes to shove.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 10, 2019)

Oh ok.   Even  if they have an attorney they will still cave that often?


----------



## Amnesiac (Oct 11, 2019)

Yep. In fact, I think most attorneys will tell the suspect to give their basic information, but to say nothing more.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 11, 2019)

When you are stopped by the police for probable cause, you are legally required to identify yourself.
it is not a violation of the 4th amendment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes


----------



## ironpony (Oct 12, 2019)

Oh okay, but since the character has no priors, then checking if he does will not do any good then, in order to search the residence, right?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Oct 13, 2019)

A 10-29 is a wants/warrants check. It is checking for outstanding arrest warrants, probation/parole violations, etc.
It is not a criminal history check. That is a much more invasive search and only done if necessary.
When they talk about priors, they mean prior arrests or convictions.
That is a horse of another color.

Most departments require a 10-29 on pretty much anyone they have contact with (although this is not entirely legal...)


----------



## ironpony (Oct 13, 2019)

Oh okay.  Well there are no arrest warrants on this character being arrested, so would the cop be allowed to follow the rest of them if they run into house, if there are no warrants on the one guy?


----------



## Amnesiac (Oct 16, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  Well there are no arrest warrants on this character being arrested, so would the cop be allowed to follow the rest of them if they run into house, if there are no warrants on the one guy?



Okay. We're running in circles, here. If I'm on patrol and I get radio traffic that there's a robbery in progress, and I see a bunch of guys running in the vicinity in ski masks, I'm calling for backup, if it's not already there, and yeah, we're going after them. I don't give a damn if they have priors or not. I have reasonable cause that I can clearly articulate, (because articulation is EVERYTHING), why I pursued and detained/arrested these guys. I don't care if they decide to lawyer up. In fact, I hope they do. It is their Constitutional right to do so, and part of my oath as a deputy, is to uphold the Constitution.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 16, 2019)

Oh ok well in this case there is no call though and you see guys in masks, running while driving and don't know what the crime is.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 16, 2019)

Four pages in and we're still blathering on about ski masks. Wow.


----------



## Amnesiac (Oct 17, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh ok well in this case there is no call though and you see guys in masks, running while driving and don't know what the crime is.



Okay. My last post in this thread, because I'm bored. I've given you as much information as I possibly can. If I see guys running with ski masks, I'm stopping them. If nothing else, it's probable cause, because it's uncommon. Even if I _haven't_ had radio traffic about a crime in progress, it's still suspicious and I would be derelict in my duty if I didn't at least check it out. That's all I've got.


----------



## ironpony (Oct 20, 2019)

Oh yeah for sure, it was just said on here before that he might not have enough probable cause to enter the house, that they run back towards, and I wanted to get him in the house, without waiting for back up, cause that just gives them time to destroy evidence, and escape out the back.  So I was wondering if seeing guys in masks and gloves was enough to get him in the house, if they run back into the house after the cop detains one of them.


----------

