Cops Called During Flashlight Test

[leukos]

The pat down would have been to see if he was armed before checking his ID. There have been numerous incidents where felons have cooperated to get close to an officer before attacking him/her. Refusing a lawful order is a crime. On the other hand, I would have been reluctant to let them in the house. Still I can see their point of view. There are such things as home takeover robberies. They can hold a loved one hostage and tell you to "get rid of the cops". I have been a hostage in a takeover robbery, although it was at a work place and not at home.

Good point.

 

[PeteBroccolo]

Sounds like the APD handled this like the 911 call that it probably was. Even in the USA, there have been Court decisions that when a 911 call comes in, the Police are OBLIGATED, by common law, to check out the circumstances fully, including being granted the RIGHT, and again obligation, to search the interior of the house to ensure that the identified owner WAS the only occupant, and was not under duress from a suspect, or several such suspects, to go outside and dissuade the investigators from continuing their lawful duty, and thus possibly allowing her/him/them to avoid detection and capture.

Yes, the situation was frightening, and it did bend the rules of security of domicile, but it was for Vizzini's, and the neighbours', safety, along with that of the responding officers', to check this out.

Even if Vizzini had spoken to 1 or more of the APD officers long before this situation, and demonstrated his flashaholishm, who is to say that those officers would have been on duty that night? My Force in general, and I particularly, is anal about filing reports for future information, but I doubt highly that those officers would document such contact, and even I would not submit such a report. I am sure that, if such a situation occurred around here, that even we would respond in a similar manner.

I understand the sanctity of the home, and the cherished provisions of your Bill of Rights, and respect the American people for such codification of such a basic, unalienable and necessary protection, which should NOT HAVE TO BE so enshrined, and just expected of all righteous and honest persons towards one another.

I actually pains me, however, to read the posts, whether in jest or not, where people mistrust their Peace Officers to the point of even suggesting that the officers in this incident might consider violating their oath of service and pilfer or cause damage to the property of, and/or harm a citizen. However, your opinions are yours, and may be the result of actual experience with your local authorities, or told to you by credible sources that have been subjected to such experiences, and no one can thus deny you from feeling that way, nor from expressing those points of view.

Just my .9 of .02 of your $.

 

[Owen]

So...
-Police dispatcher calls the suspected burglar and gives him instructions on dealing with the police.
-"Heavily armed" cops search the person who has already been identified as the homeowner, patting him down facing the street instead of against a wall.
-They then search the home without cause.
-3 cops out front, at least 1 in the back, so a minimum of 2, and probably 3 units are dispatched because someone saw a flashlight beam in a darkened house.
-Police kept the "suspect", who had been identified as the homeowner before they ever laid eyes on him, covered the entire time.

Quite a story

 

[Manzerick]

I'll admit... I'm a jerk sometimes... I have a neighbor who kept calling to cops on my lights when I went outside (I live 10 miles from Fenway Park).

I then staged "Shock and AWE!" To Describe: me and a friend took all my candlepower and his and lit up my neighbor's house. Not nice but man I was mad. He hasn't called the cops since so I guess it worked

 

[Pydpiper]

No matter what your reply was to them asking for permission to search your home they would have gone in.
Say "yes" and they go in, say "no" and you become "suspicious" and they use that as grounds to be thorough in there response.

It's always nice to hear an honest officers opinion, but those opinions are growing fewer and farther between.

 

[Lightraven]

Generally, if a United States LEO asks permission to do something, it is because he or she does not have the authority to do it. Invoking rights cannot be used in the field or in court as probable cause for anything according to case law.

I advise people to be polite and courteous to LEOs, but your Constitutional rights are your rights, and you may invoke them if allowed to do so. Most people haven't a clue as to their rights and depend on the police they are in contact with to tell them ("You have the right to remain silent. . ." etc.) LEOs typically will be honest because they don't want to get in trouble with the agency or lose a case in court.

LEOs may enter a residence without warrant under "emergent circumstances." A burglar robbing the place would be considered emergent, but a homeowner explaining the situation would nullify the emergency.

Many people are afraid to invoke their rights, but I've never seen any negative consequences of doing so.

 

[zespectre]

Well as for checking the house...
(caviet, this did not happen to me personally but I know one of the officers who responded).

Someone calls and reports a suspicious person breaking into the house next door.
Police respond. Homeowner is home and says they are the only one there. Are extremely disgruntled at being awakened at 11:45pm and basically tell the responding officers to go away. Officers go over to the neighbors (the guy who called) to ask him for more details.

While talking to the neighbor, the officers get a second call to the same house. The angry homeowner had gone back inside and then discovered a drunk homeless guy passed out in his kitchen (he had broken in by forcing the back door).

I personally think there is a HUGE difference between "searching" a house and just doing a quick walkthrough to make sure the call was a false alarm. I have long lost count of the number of times -I- did a walkthrough of a location and found something the homeowner (property manager, night watchman, etc) was completely unaware of like signs of an attempted entry or signs that someone was there and left.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

...I actually pains me, however, to read the posts, whether in jest or not, where people mistrust their Peace Officers to the point of even suggesting that the officers in this incident might consider violating their oath of service and pilfer or cause damage to the property of, and/or harm a citizen. However, your opinions are yours, and may be the result of actual experience with your local authorities, or told to you by credible sources that have been subjected to such experiences, and no one can thus deny you from feeling that way, nor from expressing those points of view...

I hear you, but their are other factors involved here. I myself have witnessed first hand illegal acts of violence and abuse and stupidity and a total disregard for the individual's rights as laid out in the Constitution by some "Peace Officers". Google Katrina.

This is not speculation on my part. I have seen it. I will not pussyfoot around about whether the police are somehow above the rest of the human race and thus incapable of any disgusting act that any other human may do.

Note that I am not lumping all LEOs into one group, here. This is about behavior, not job description. I am merely asserting that they are all human. If that offends anyone they should ask themselves why. I'm just telling you what I have seen with my own eyes -- some things that I have been given no reason to think can't happen again at any time. Citizens always have reason for concern when heavily armed men are outside their door making demands of them. It is always dangerous.

I understand that it is stressful for the officers but it must also be understood that no one has forced them into their jobs. Like everyone else they have free will. If they are not up to the demands of the job they probably shouldn't carry a badge and a gun.

Our system is not set up with the intention of always guaranteeing safety for the officer at the expense of the rights of the individual, although there are a great many countries that do precisely that. Our founding fathers tried to design a system that would do a better job of limiting the potential for abuse that must exist in all systems. If abusing the rights of others weren't a chronic condition in humans we wouldn't need laws or police or courts or prisons...or governments at all. Our system was crafted in such a way that more is expected -- no, demanded from those who serve the public and from the public itself.

While there are many, many times when I feel that the citizenry is becoming less and less able to hold up it's part of the bargain, the laws and the Constitution still stand and public servants who took their jobs of their own free will should either suck it up and uphold the law of the land -- or quit and try to change the Constitution in a lawful manner, just like any ordinary citizens would have to if this were any other issue.

NOTE: I was at home on the high ground in New Orleans throughout the six week Mandatory Forced Evacuation for Katrina. Even though I am a mere citizen I never looted or stole or abused or abandoned or murdered anyone in the aftermath of Katrina, unlike one third of the members of NOPD.

This country does not exist with the sole purpose of providing a safe working environment for police officers.

 

[jason9987]

Sounds like the APD handled this like the 911 call that it probably was. Even in the USA, there have been Court decisions that when a 911 call comes in, the Police are OBLIGATED, by common law, to check out the circumstances fully, including being granted the RIGHT, and again obligation, to search the interior of the house to ensure that the identified owner WAS the only occupant, and was not under duress from a suspect, or several such suspects, to go outside and dissuade the investigators from continuing their lawful duty, and thus possibly allowing her/him/them to avoid detection and capture.

Police are only obligated to search the house if the origin of the call is the house they are searching. Also I think that once the home owner is identifed he/she should be allowed to go inside with the police, if they choose to.
I personaly would have told the dispatcher that I would go to the door with My ID already out and I would not have given permission to come inside, if they decided to come in anyway, handcuff me, or in any way violated my rights, I would think about getting a lawyer, or atleast asking for a formal apology

 

[David_Campen]

Many people are afraid to invoke their rights, but I've never seen any negative consequences of doing so.

Well, there was the Federal checkpoint on the road north from El Paso into New Mexico. When the thug at the checkpoint asked where I was going I asked if that was a question I was required to answer, he said "no but you could answer if you want to" to which I replied "well, I don't want to". You could immediately see the anger in his face and I was ordered to pull my vehcle into the inspection area, my wife and I were ordered out of the vehicle. Two more thugs came running out with their hands on their guns and we were detained while a third thug walked his barking dog around my vehicle. They claimed that the detention and inspection was not retaliation for refusing to state my travel plans, that they were inspecting all vehicles with out of state plates; I don't believe that.

 

[EV_007]

Look at it from the other side.

911 operator gets a call from a concerned citizen seeing lights in a darkened house, the flashing on and off at different angles and intervals which he/she seems odd and feels warranted in reporting.

Nearest squad responds with that info. They may think there is more than one intruder due to multiple "beamshot tests" over a certain period of time.

There may have been other burglaries in that area. A suspect fleeing a crime scene not too far from where it occurred. Maybe a home invasion or two they are following up on.

They respond to the location not taking any chances. They are preparing for the worst.

Having the occupant come out of the house illuminates a lot of unknown factors, such as having to enter a dark, unfamiliar house, having to deal with potentially armed multiple intruders, etc…

As mentioned earlier, maybe a home invasion/hostage situation in progress. Thus the sweeping of home to ensure it is clear of bad guys.

Showing I.D. at the door and all may seem logical, but from the responding officers point of view, an intruder just out of sight could be holding you at gunpoint forcing you to do so.

Good attitude will ensure positive response, negative one may be counterproductive.

 

[Brighteyez]

Your story reminds me of the one about an officer who was admonished by a citizen for "being rude" as he had interupted the driver's cellphone conversation. The officer immediately apologized for the interuption, wrote the driver a $331 citation for parking in a handicapped zone, and placed it under the wiper blade so as not to further interrupt the high and mighty citizen's phone conversation.

Of course, we all know that you were just a victim of circumstances ...

Well, there was the Federal checkpoint on the road north from El Paso into New Mexico. When the thug at the checkpoint asked where I was going I asked if that was a question I was required to answer, he said "no but you could answer if you want to" to which I replied "well, I don't want to". You could immediately see the anger in his face and I was ordered to pull my vehcle into the inspection area, my wife and I were ordered out of the vehicle. Two more thugs came running out with their hands on their guns and we were detained while a third thug walked his barking dog around my vehicle. They claimed that the detention and inspection was not retaliation for refusing to state my travel plans, that they were inspecting all vehicles with out of state plates; I don't believe that.

 

[beezaur]

I was raised during the Cold War, and taught to hate the Soviets. I hate them, but why I can't remember. . .

Oh Yes! I remember -- it was because their government gave their people no freedom. They spied on thier civillians. The KGB came knocking with absolute authority, and you had better comply. If they wanted to search your stuff, let them. If they want to hold you at gunpoint in front of your own home in front of your neighbors, then just comply, or face the consequences of your . . .

. . . of your shining a flashlight in your own home.

To comply with being searched at gunpoint in front of your own home over your flashlight use is to give up the freedom to do so.

Can you do it again?

Do you feel ok about shining a light in your own home as you please?

It doesn't sound like it.

Scott

 

[greenLED]

Underground, anyone?

 

[NoFair]

One thing I learned in the military is "Don't argue with the 18 year old with the machine gun." I've sort of adopted that attitude in all of my dealings with law enforcement.

And just for the record they entered the house after they checked my identity, I told them there was no one else inside, and that they could verify it for themselves.

+1 on the kids with auto weapons. One of my squad mates was almost shot by a nervous rookie doing guard duty when he returned slightly drunk from a night out...

Be polite when dealing with armed police/soldiers, and when you hear the safety turned off be very polite

 

[flashfan]

This thread reminded of something that happened just before the holidays a few years ago. The account is to the best of my recollection and may include omissions and/or inaccuracies.

A neighbor saw a guy acting suspiciously, peering over a neighbor's back fence one day. She called the police, and two officers knocked on the front door of the house with the suspicious activity, while another officer patrolled in the rear area.

A lady came to the door of this house in a nice, quiet residential neighborhood. Apparently she was at home alone (husband at work, teenage son in school), and wasn't aware of anything amiss. She said she would go around to the back to open a gate or something, and left the officers waiting at the front door. They waited and waited, and when she didn't return, they started to call out to her. There was no response.

The officers then go in search for the lady. They find her out back near the back door...dead. Apparently, she encountered/surprised the suspicious person in her back yard, and he killed her.

The perpetrator was apprehended a short time later, I think it was by the third officer that was patrolling the area, who noticed a suspicious person somewhere nearby.

Well, as it finally turned out, the lady's husband apparently hired the guy to murder his wife. I would think the case was solved relatively quickly because of a diligent neighbor who reported suspicious activity, and thus allowed the police to apprehend the perpetrator right away.

Would the lady still be alive today if the police had searched the property at the time? Perhaps, but given the husband's involvement, a second attempt would seem probable.

 

[magic79]

Sounds like the APD handled this like the 911 call that it probably was. Even in the USA, there have been Court decisions that when a 911 call comes in, the Police are OBLIGATED, by common law, to check out the circumstances fully, including being granted the RIGHT, and again obligation, to search the interior of the house to ensure that the identified owner WAS the only occupant, and was not under duress from a suspect, or several such suspects, to go outside and dissuade the investigators from continuing their lawful duty, and thus possibly allowing her/him/them to avoid detection and capture.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I am skeptical that there have been U.S. case so adjudicated. Could you cite one or more that I may read it?

 

[beezaur]

Checking your house for you, at your request, is valuable service offered by law enforcement. It is what makes us safer.

Being called out of your home and searched at gunpoint in your own front yard, in front of your neighbors, is another matter.

It is possible to destroy the thing you are sworn to protect, by overprotecting it.

Scott

 

[David_Campen]

Of course, we all know that you were just a victim of circumstances ...

Not at all, I brought the retaliation on myself by correctly telling the federal cop that my travel destination was none of his business.

 

[Brighteyez]

I think Pete is with RCMP, rather than with a U.S. department, but I would think that he'd be morally correct in ensuring that reasonable measures of public safety are exercised.

But just to give you a local example to chew on, a while back there was an extensive multi-agency search for an immigrant physician who disappeared between her office and a meeting that she was due to attend. About a month later, it was discovered that the physician had driven down a boat ramp into an estuary.

That ramp was built in 1959; there have been two other fatalities that have occurred on that ramp. Two drunks who drove down the ramp, and an 80 year old who drove down it to commit suicide. Yesterday, it was announced that the physician's family will be seeking civil damages from the city, because they do not feel that the city exercised due diligence in preventing people from driving down that ramp.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I am skeptical that there have been U.S. case so adjudicated. Could you cite one or more that I may read it?