TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:Didn't read the replies (intentionally).

If they are asked and denied consent, AND they believe that they would need a warrant to proceed, the police cannot say or do anything to coerce a consensual search, or else the consent is not given freely or voluntarily and would get tossed.

They have had a hot pursuit argument, but it doesn't seem likely. It's always better just to get the warrant. As long as you don't lie on the affidavit, judges rarely toss a search warrant that another judge has signed off as having PC to move forward.

srothstein wrote:Unlike, GigAg04, I did read the replies first. It is more interesting that way. But my answer is still the same. This is not legal behavior anywhere in the country since obtaining permission by threat is coercion. SCOTUS has long held that this voids any consent given.

The hot pursuit argument is not quite as clear, but from the description, it is clear to me that they were not in hot pursuit. I agree with WildBill that it is not necessarily the clear cut case of the guy was running and I saw him enter the house, but it is almost as close. For example, if I am searching for a robber for the first 30 minutes after he committed the crime, I can enter a lot of places in hot pursuit if I can show a valid reason for me to think he went in there, such as a jacket and hat on a porch. It does not have to prove the person went in, but should be a strong indication. The longer from the crime or the person being last seen, and the further from the crime scene, the harder this is.

I will say that this seems like a really poor choice of person to threaten like that. I don't recommend threatening or bullying anyone into giving consent, but a lawyer seems like a particularly bad choice for that activity. Even if he is not a criminal lawyer, he probably had some constitutional law classes and he knows how to look it up later for the lawsuit he wants to file.

THANK YOU! Both of you! Seriously. This is exactly what I had hoped to hear, and it restores my faith in things. This is why I had specifically directed the question to LEOs, and did not want it to degenerate into something else.

cb1000rider wrote:Honestly, if they're chasing a felon and they saw that person enter my house, I'm letting them in.

Me too. I'd be happy to let them in if that were the case. But if I'm home, and the doors and windows are all closed and locked (that's how I keep them) and I've got a very territorial Boxer/Lab mix on the loose in the house (the dog I have in the fight I mentioned in my OP), then nobody has gotten into my house without alerting me. So, their claim to have seen the BG enter my house has to be corroborated by what I know to be true, from inside my own house, or I'm not buying any of their crazy. If I see a back door kicked open or a broken window, and a dead dog on the floor, then I'm inviting the police in, and offering them coffee and sammiches after they catch the guy.

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:"Hot pursuit" means you (the LEO) SAW the bad guy(s) enter the abode. That was not the case in my OP. Police were looking for two guys whom they believed to be parole violators, and they were knocking on doors looking for them. They did not see the suspects enter the man's home. . . .or any other home, for that matter, or they would have obviously gone to that home directly.

You might think so, but that is not the case law.

Really? Then we no longer have a shred of 4th Amendment left.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I thought if they were in active pursuit of criminals they could enter the abode. Am I incorrect in that if they are actively chasing a suspect they can enter?

"Hot pursuit" is the common term.

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/155500c.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes hot pursuit. Thanks!
Unforunately I have images of Dukes of Hazzard banging in my head now...

"Hot pursuit" means you (the LEO) SAW the bad guy(s) enter the abode. That was not the case in my OP. Police were looking for two guys whom they believed to be parole violators, and they were knocking on doors looking for them. They did not see the suspects enter the man's home. . . .or any other home, for that matter, or they would have obviously gone to that home directly.

So the issue in this case isn't whether or not police have the authority to enter a home in hot pursuit, it is whether or not they have the right to threaten a homeowner with what would be terroristic threats coming from anyone else, in trying to gain entrance to that home without a warrant. . . . .on the odd (small) chance that the person they are looking for is in that home.

FWIW, I am not doing anything illegal in my home, but I do have loaded firearms in the home, and at least a couple of them are at all times in plain view (top of dresser, fireplace mantle, stuff like that), not to mention whatever I might have on my person at the moment. I don't want some overzealous LEO entering my home and freaking out at the sight of a loaded gun in plain view and then going through some song and dance with me about my lawfully purchased and owned guns. . . . .when that isn't what they came into my home for in the first place.

The problem with letting an LEO into your home without a warrant isn't really the issue they are originally there for—in this case, the search for some parole violators. The problem is containing the "mission creep" once they get inside of your home. I'm not a drug abuser, nor do I condone it, but let's say just for argument's sake that you are a recreational user of pot, and you have a burned out "roach" in the ashtray on the coffee table and the house smells like you have been burning incense. Let's say further that the "roach" isn't the last of your stash—you've got a bag with a 1/4 oz in your sock drawer. Cops come to your door, ask to search your home while looking for a parole violator. You don't protest and you let them in. One of them sniffs the air, sees the roach in the ashtray, and now all of a sudden, they are no longer there to find a parole violator, they are there to search your home for drugs. They bring in the drug-sniffing dog. It finds the baggie in your sock drawer, and the police arrest you, and not the parole violator they were looking for.

There are so many laws on the books it is commonly said that most of us are unknowingly violating more than one of them at any given time. So even for those of us who are intentionally law-abiding (that is to say, we are intentionally trying to be law abiding, but may be unknowingly breaking some law or other), there is no certainty that police will not find something to use against you once they access your home. Given the probability of LE mission creep once access has been granted, there are no incentives beyond simple good will for even the law-abiding citizen to freely allow police access without a warrant. If you're that hypothetical pot smoker, insisting on a warrant at least gives you time to clean up your stuff so that the police search for a wanted man doesn't turn into your own arrest. If you're not a pot smoker and you have "nothing to hide," insisting on a warrant at least requires them to state their reason for wanting access to your home, which narrows the scope of their search. Obviously, they are going to look under the bed for a hiding bad guy, but they are not going to have a lawful reason to search your sock and underwear drawers for something to serendipitously use against you.

I mentioned grace earlier. My personal inclination is to cooperate, but when I read stories of thuggish behavior, it diminishes that desire to be cooperative. These things are so terribly damaging to the good will between citizens and police which MUST exist for policing to be most successful. I have stated may times on this forum my belief that successful policing requires trust and cooperation between citizens and police, and that trust must be earned on both sides. But if we have a 4th Amendment right, why should it be a cause for police hostility when a citizen insists on police respect for that right?

That is why I ask LEO members if it is legal in Texas for an LEO to make what would be a terroristic threat if made by anyone else, in order to intimidate a citizen into granting access their home without a warrant. Secondarily, what recourse do citizens have to ensure that complaints don't disappear down a rabbit hole of unaccountability?

jmra wrote:

Beiruty wrote:The officer was maybe recounting how they do business with hard core drug dealers. Of course, this is unacaptable as the lawyer did nothing wrong. He should file a complaint and request a public apology. The lawyer should know what to do, no?

"This question is for forum members who are LEO.... "

Thank you. I really AM trying to get the LEO perspective on this. Charles posted recently about his concern for some of these threads degenerating into LEO slamming. That is not my intent here. This is a "teachable moment" for those of us who are NOT LEO to learn from LEOs what is actually permissible in Texas — so that we may better know our rights — and to know what kind of things we should expect as normal and legal when we have interactions with LEOs like the one in my opening post, as well as how to maintain good relationships with LEOs while still defending our rights.

Lastly, how do we follow up to ensure accountability when LEO responses are inappropriate, in a way best optimized to accomplish accountability without straining the bonds between community and police?

Police knock on the front door of a house at night, looking for two fleeing felons. House belongs to a lawyer, who, not knowing who was at the door, answers the door with a crowbar in hand. He is told to put it down, and he complies. Police request permission to search his home, he refuses, tells them to get a warrant. Cops threaten to smash his property and shoot and kill his dogs if they have to come back with a warrant.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/05/cops- ... ntwere-gon

“I said, ‘I have no idea who you’re talking about I’ve never heard of these people before,’” he said.

To prove it, he said police asked to search his house, Crinnian refused multiple times. He said they needed a warrant.

Then he said one police officer started threatening him saying, “If we have to get a warrant, we’re going to come back when you’re not expecting it, we’re going to park in front of your house, where all your neighbors can see, we’re gonna bust in your door with a battering ram, we’re gonna shoot and kill your dogs, who are my family, and then we’re going to ransack your house looking for these people.”

This question is for forum members who are LEO.... Is it legal in Texas for an LEO to threaten a homeowner with destruction of his property and killing of his pets if they have to come back with a warrant? I actually have a dog in this fight, so to speak.