Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause?

Question

Someone needs to help me out big time! Pleaseee I need help. It was my Prom weekend and we were partying down the shore, it was just around midnight and someone called the police on a public nusiance call. As the cops were coming to the house they saw 2 kids on the roof and then knocked on the door. I answered it and they just plowed into the house and saw beer and then decided to give us all underage drinking tickets. I would appricate it greatly if someone who's an attorney or knows the law could tell me if the cops had the right to enter the house because now we are all getting $400 tickets and a record. So if anyone knows the law or anything to help me out. Please let me know thanks.

Answer 1

when you open the door it becomes public intoxication......you opened the door. that was your second mistake.

your first mistake was being at a party that involved underage drinking.

pay the ticket

Answer 2

There are several reasons why the police may be able to enter a residence without a warrant and many may apply in your situation; fresh pursuit, exigent circumstances, open view, evidence preservation, and routine investions. I will explain them a little more without knowing if they would for sure apply without all the details.

Fresh pursuit: If they arrived and saw what they thought were underage drinkers outside who ran inside they may be able to enter based on fresh pursuit.

Routine investigations: This is the most common one. The police certainly may not enter the home (absent the other circumstances) against the will of the owner. However once arriving on scene they obviously must conduct a routine investigation to determine what the problem is and how to remedy it. So say they come to the door and you open it (I am not clear on if you are the owner of the house or not). They then ask to speak to the responsible party and you say that either you do not know who it is or that the person is inside. At that point they may enter to try to locate the responsible party, absent anyone asking them not to do so.
The big party type situation is quite different from a regular call, often times the police can show up and enter the house and be in there for who knows how long before the owner and half the people even know that the police are there. Also at a big party most of the time the owner doesn't really know half of the people there and people are coming and going freely, therefore the police just walk in like anyone else unless they are told by the owner that they can not enter.
(Im sure this will be a very controvesial point but that is my understanding of it and as an officer whose patrol area includes a college party town I have been to many of them)

Open view: If the officers were legally in a place (at the door) and viewed evidence inside the residence that would consitute a crime (beer and underage drinkers) they have the right to enter the residence to secure the evidence and ensure that the evidence, including the underage drinkers do not not dissapper. This is the preservation of evidence exception I mentioned.

Exigent Circumstances: This is the one that can sometimes be overused. I have seen officers get in trouble for entering residences trying to base it on the "exigent circumstance" that there were several underage drinkers inside and they could be in danger (of overdose, alcohol poisoning, girls being date raped or whatever) and that will generally not fly without specific information to suggest that one of those things may be taking place.

However one thing that you stated that makes me think that they might have been able to enter based on exigent circumstances, "they saw 2 kids on the roof". Two drunk kids on the roof (assuming they were drunk) could certainly be very dangerous and could end up falling and being injured at any time.

So to summarize the police can not just enter a home without a warrant any time they want but there are many exceptions to needing a warrant and it is quite likely that they can justify their actions. Without all the details I can not say that for sure that is the case. If you still feel that what they did was illegal then talk to a lawyer and see if they will take your case.

Answer 3

Way to many children on this blog pretending to have any frickin clue as to what the law says I can and can NOT do. Listen to those that are obviously in law enforcement. Simply, as stated by those obviously in law enforcement, when I arrive on a call like this and see a couple monkeys on the roof and look in the window and see minors drinking, you better believe I'm coming in. They actually saw the drinking from the doorway. Same thing, I don't need you, I'll come on in. What happens from this point depends. I may just write all of you tickets. If you are 21 or older, I may write you for providing alcohol to a minor. It just depends. Next time, I would recommend having a couple friends over and keeping things quiet.

Answer 4

Just receiving a nuisance call is not enough but once the officers showed up and HEARD the disturbance (which would be a clear violation of the town's noise ordinance), that would be enough. Add to that seeing minors on top of the roof, not a safe environment. They knocked on the door and you opened it and it was at this point they SAW (with their own eyes) minors in possession of alcohol. Have you ever heard of the 'plain view doctrine'? Basically what that means is that anything illegal that is with their (the officers') view, is enough PC (probable cause) to do what they did. They were in the right and you guys were in the wrong. Pay the ticket.

Answer 5

IN your case they are justifiable as mentioned with ppl on the roof they would simply say they were acting on your welfare as someone could have been hurt. If you opened the door and there was a bomb its no different. An offence is been committed within plain view of the police. Go the station and suggest an alternatives measures for the charge, because you dont want anything on your record. Get your parents involved with the police so that they may be more inclined to reconsider the charge, by seeing that your parents and yourslef are responsible.

Answer 6

The call that the officers were dispatched to check out and the children on the roof (teenagers, young adults - not acting very adult-like), were all the probable cause that was needed for the police to make an entry into that house even if no one answered the door.

Good luck trying to fight this one. You may be able to minimize your problems by entering into a plea agreement.

Hope this helps.

Answer 7

Whether there was sufficient cause to make entry will depend entirely upon the details. If the officers were able to articulate sufficient cause, then the entry would be lawful. We simply do not know if they had sufficient cause or not.

If you have the money, hire an attorney to challenge the entry. However, depending on the law in your state, only the property owner/lessee may be able to challenge the legality of the entry.

From the description, I can think of MANY reasons to justify entry into the residence. Ultimately, onl a court can make that determination based upon ALL the facts and not just one interpretation.

- Carl

Answer 8

That sounds pretty unlawful to me. They needed a warrant and from your explanation, they were answering a complaint. That does not give them the right to enter your home without probable cause, and a complaint for public nuisance is not probable cause.

Many police depts, actually almost all, know where the judge is and if they can see an open container that is probable cause.....TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT!

I don't claim to be an attorney, but I have worked many of these in child abuse cases. If they don't have permission to enter they need a warrant unless someones. or their. lives are in jeopardy, which I doubt was the case.

You need a copy of the report to see how they wrote up their "authority" to enter, because I am sure it is not going to read as you described, but I can't think of anything that would allow them to enter!


"A warrantless search that turned up drugs and paraphernalia and led to the arrest of a Ralls County man was illegal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, ruled Tuesday, finding that an affidavit did not support probable cause for his arrest and conviction.

A jury convicted John Mahsman for possessing and manufacturing methamphetamine after a Ralls County trial court denied Mahsman's motion to suppress the methamphetamine and paraphernalia commonly used in the drug's production seized from his home under a search warrant, which he claimed was not based on probable cause."

See, they sometimes THINK they have probable cause, and even had an affidavit, however they were using far reaching Suspicions , though they turned out founded, did not constitute sufficient grounds for the issuance of a warrant!

I think the Constitution ios pretty clear on this matter, except to Bush!

Answer 9

If they "plowed into" the house then it is all fruit from the poisoned tree. However if you opened the door and did not close it behind you anything in their line of sight(including alcohol containers) is usable as evidence and as probable cause to enter your home. You may have a chance of beating this so screw I'm Susan I say fight it. Cops usually don't care about going to court over petty offenses and if their entry was indeed questionable they will want it to go away.

Answer 10

this is regardless of the Justice of the Peace or trial decide makes a decision the version is. you may desire to understand, collectively as you're youthful, that regulation isn't something greater effective than politics dressed up as a justice device. you may think of of the ranges of info alongside the strains of probabilities. perhaps all genuine looking doubt is eighty 5-ninety %, in all likelihood reason is minimum info, and genuine looking suspicion is a little greater effective than conjecture. you're able to do a seek on the internet for the version between genuine looking and in all likelihood reason as defined by utilising the Courts interior the U.S. it is not a significant distinction. you may arrest with in all likelihood reason. you may no longer continually arrest in situations of genuine looking suspicion, as I understand the latter term.

Answer 11

The Officers were right, they got PC when they received the call and saw people on the roof drinking. Drunk people on a roof is a safety issue and Officers have a duty to arrest anyone that is a threat to others AND to themselves, in this instance, they were a threat to themselves. You don't have a prayer of fighting this so pay the fine.