The other side of the coin [Archive]

Wagonman

June 16, 2009, 09:00 PM

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-News-Stories/Virginia-Police-Investigate-Alleged-Botched-911-Call/1$47087

This is the reason some Coppers err on the side of being more proactive, not because we are jack booted fascists that use the BOR for toilet paper.

These Coppers are going to have unwarranted aggravation for respecting the civil rights of the lady who didn't answer the door due to her condition.

Who thinks the Coppers were incorrect in their actions.....and why? I am in the camp that would say that they did their job by the numbers. But, the victim's husband is crying foul, lazy Coppers shoulda kicked down the door and saved the missus.

Another wrinkle, how do you know that is in fact the husband callling 911 and not someone screwing with the victim.

Dust Monkey

June 16, 2009, 09:35 PM

From the article:

"And nobody responded, so I call 911 to come to my house and check my wife with my one-and-a-half-year (old) boy. So, when they came they knocked on the door and told me ... that nobody responded in the house, no TV, no noise, no nothing in the house," he said.

Aboagye says he asked police to break down the door but says police were unable to do so because they did not have the tools.

Aboagye left work and made it home nearly four hours later, finding his unconscious wife on the floor.

This is thin, see through. Do not have to tools. Wow, what happened to all the ninja SWAT gear, or the universal key, your boot.

If you get a call about someone in medical need, giving birth, and you knock on the door and leave cause no one answered. You arent protecting someones civil rights, your lazy and you are not doing your job as a public servant.

They should have aggravation. Use your noggin. People who want to screw with others usually call in a SWAT type call, as in "drugs at this house, drug buy going down". The odds of someone calling in to check on a family member who may be in medical need is very low.

You want to tackle the real problem, as I and others see it, address this:
http://www.pr-inside.com/drug-suspect-turns-tables-on-ny-r1320357.htm

maestro pistolero

June 16, 2009, 09:49 PM

Nowhere in the story does it say they refused to enter for reasons of protecting civil rights, only that they had no tools to enter. If they had been chasing fleeing felon, you can bet they would have found a way. And, as the story points out, there was no attempt to enlist the help of the fire department who most certainly have such tools.

There was never a question raised about the identity of the 911 caller. In any case, there are any number of ways of identifying the gentlemen over the phone, such as a drivers license@, SS#, home address on his ID. And there would be serious ramifications for someone misdirecting police activity if he were motivated by ill-will, of which there was no indication or suspicion.

Finally, the officers had direct information that the welfare of two individuals was in serious question, one of them a child, and they had permission from a resident of the home to enter. This was a fumble, and someone almost died.

OuTcAsT

June 16, 2009, 10:21 PM

I am in the camp that would say that they did their job by the numbers

Well Wagonman, at least you are consistent with your answers, I asked you a question a while back, about booting a door if you got no response to your knock, you said ;

I would radio my dispatcher and get a "callback" if there is no answer or voice mail I code out the job and jump back in the squad and leave with a hearty HI HO SILVER AWAY!!!

…for me and just about any Copper I have worked with it has to be pretty cut and dried and the spidey sense has to be tingling for me to get into that kind of play.

I really question why, if the husband were as worried as he claimed, A) Why he left the house to begin with and, B) Why it took him 4 hours to return.

I will reserve further comment until more info is available, the article is too vague.

csmsss

June 16, 2009, 11:40 PM

I really question why, if the husband were as worried as he claimed, A) Why he left the house to begin with and, B) Why it took him 4 hours to return. (B) is pretty simple - Alexandria and Virginia Beach are over 200 miles apart, and traffic in Alexandria can be terrible at the best of times. Frankly, he did well in getting there in four hours. Not everyone works in the same town where he lives.

Michael Anthony

June 17, 2009, 12:01 AM

The odds of someone calling in to check on a family member who may be in medical need is very low.

This is false.

Law enforcement receives premature, and outright BS calls from "worried family members" every day.

The fact that they felt the need to make an excuse for why they couldn't get in is regrettable. Their answer should have been "We do not do that."

The very rare possibility that something is wrong is immaterial. With no evidence of criminal or suspicious activity, law enforcement has no authority or duty to take any action.

maestro pistolero

June 17, 2009, 10:30 AM

With no evidence of criminal or suspicious activity, law enforcement has no authority or duty to take any action.

I would quibble with the authority part of that statement, they were given permission from the occupant to enter. We already know they have no duty to protect. Their primary duty is to enforce law as agents of the state.

OuTcAsT

June 17, 2009, 11:04 AM

We already know they have no duty to protect. Their primary duty is to enforce law as agents of the state.

Yup, no crime = no lawful entry.

However, had the husband been on the premises, and asked for help, they would likely have had some obligation to do so,
at the least a moral one.

maestro pistolero

June 17, 2009, 12:37 PM

However, had the husband been on the premises

What difference should that make? He had more of a need for help being four hours away. And he DID ask for help.

Yup, no crime = no lawful entry. Under ANY circumstances? Reference please? What if they KNEW someone was dying inside and needed their help? Would that entry be illegal?

OuTcAsT

June 17, 2009, 02:02 PM

What difference should that make?

If he were there, in person, obviously he could give permission to enter, as all the operator had was a call from someone saying he was the husband, (at least with the info we have) There is no absolute way to be certain he is who he says he is, and, being an apartment, it would be even harder to confirm.

Under ANY circumstances? Reference please? What if they KNEW someone was dying inside and needed their help? Would that entry be illegal?

After discussions I have participated in, on this forum, in the past, my understanding is that there must be some sort of "reasonable suspicion" that there is a crime, or life threatening emergency, before a forced entry is advised.

Obviously, if the officer sees, or hears something that makes him suspicious, he will likely boot in, but a dark, silent house? And a story that the wife is not answering the phone ? That's pretty thin.

Still not enough facts yet, but sounds like they were acting reasonably to me so far.

ETA: The guy obviously had a "gut feeling" that something was wrong well before he left for work, otherwise there would have been no Dr. Appointment planned. IMO he should have called EMS then or, stayed home. ( Been through this with 2 kids, you gotta go with your gut ) And yeah, I know someone is gonna say " Why risk his job over something that could have been nothing" ? I have sacrificed job over family, ya gotta have "priorities".

bigger hammer

June 17, 2009, 02:04 PM

This is thin, see through. Do not have to tools. Wow, what happened to all the ninja SWAT gear, or the universal key, your boot.

I'd guess that's the reason given by the phone operator telling the person reporting why the officers couldn't break down the door.

If you get a call about someone in medical need, giving birth, and you knock on the door and leave cause no one answered. You arent protecting someones civil rights, your lazy and you are not doing your job as a public servant.

Had the call been coming from inside the house, breaking the door down probably would have been the appropriate response. Since it was coming from outside the house, it's not.

They should have aggravation. Use your noggin. People who want to screw with others usually call in a SWAT type call, as in "drugs at this house, drug buy going down".

Most often crank calls where people want some action, take the form of "man with a gun." That's not a SWAT callout for any department that I know of. Neither for that matter is "drugs at this house, drug buy going down". SWAT doesn't roll out just because someone is buying or selling drugs. A narcotics team might, but most often a patrol unit will investigate.

The odds of someone calling in to check on a family member who may be in medical need is very low.

The call is so common that it has a name. Here, it's called a "Welfare check." Often they're based on things as vague as "They won't answer the phone" or "We were supposed to have lunch and they're late."

bigger hammer

June 17, 2009, 02:05 PM

There was never a question raised about the identity of the 911 caller.

It would be more accurate to say that the story does not mention if the department attempted to verify the identity of the 911 caller. You have no idea if that was done.

In any case, there are any number of ways of identifying the gentlemen over the phone, such as a drivers license@, SS#, home address on his ID.

None of these gives any reliability to the identity of the caller.

And there would be serious ramifications for someone misdirecting police activity if he were motivated by ill-will, of which there was no indication or suspicion.

There are "serious ramifications" for murder too. Last I heard it hadn't stopped it.

Finally, the officers had direct information that the welfare of two individuals was in serious question, one of them a child, and they had permission from a resident of the home to enter. This was a fumble, and someone almost died.

Unfortunate for sure. But no fumble.

bigger hammer

June 17, 2009, 02:06 PM

I really question why, if the husband were as worried as he claimed, A) Why he left the house to begin with and, B) Why it took him 4 hours to return.

I don't know the geography there. Perhaps that's how long a drive it is?

I will reserve further comment until more info is available, the article is too vague.

A logical and reasonable thing to do. Based on just what the article presents, the police were right in leaving.

I can easily imagine the outcry from the usual suspects had this gone another way. Someone has a p!ss–off with a neighbor. They make a similar call. The resident doesn't don't answer the door because he's taking a nap. The police kick in the door, the resident, thinking he's being robbed, goes for a gun and is killed by the police.

bigger hammer

June 17, 2009, 02:07 PM

With no evidence of criminal or suspicious activity, law enforcement has no authority or duty to take any action.

I would quibble with the authority part of that statement, they were given permission from the occupant to enter. [Emphasis added]

They were asked from someone who was not identified to break down the door.

We already know they have no duty to protect. Their primary duty is to enforce law as agents of the state.

You've misunderstood the concept. Polcie have a "duty to protect" society. There is no duty to protect "a given individual."

bigger hammer

June 17, 2009, 02:08 PM

However, had the husband been on the premises, and asked for help, they would likely have had some obligation to do so, at the least a moral one.

Had he been on the premises he probably would have a key so breaking the door would not have been necessary. Or he could have broken the door down himself. Had he been physically incapable of doing so, after they determined that he WAS a resident they could have done so. With nothing but a voice on a phone, there's not enough.

bigger hammer

June 17, 2009, 02:09 PM

Yup, no crime = no lawful entry.

Under ANY circumstances? Reference please? What if they KNEW someone was dying inside and needed their help? Would that entry be illegal?

If this was known (note the emphasis) then entry would be OK.

maestro pistolero

June 17, 2009, 02:10 PM

I don't know the geography there. Perhaps that's how long a drive it is?

Answered in post #5. 200 miles, trafficky at times.

JustDreadful

June 18, 2009, 12:51 AM

I'm no blue groupie, but the cops did the right thing here. Saying that cops should, or even CAN, kick in a door based on a phone call opens a giant can o' worms. Any house they want to take a look around in, "We got a call..."

The fact that they felt the need to make an excuse for why they couldn't get in is regrettable. Their answer should have been "We do not do that."
This

Wagonman

June 18, 2009, 01:04 AM

I would not be justfied in breaking down a door because of an anonymous caller said to.

The not having proper equipment is meaningless, they should've said "we came, no answer residence secure ground level. This post proves the damned if we do damned if we don't reality of Police work.

Dust Monkey

June 18, 2009, 01:29 AM

So when a cop, swat team, busts down a door because of a "informant" who may or may not have been vetted and ends up being the wrong address, it's ok. But a voice on the phone about a medical emergency is not ok. Seems the adrenial junkie call gets the go ahead. Are cops today really that obtuse? I emailed this thread to a 20 year veteran of LE, friend of the family. His response, well, was ***? And opined that if it were officers who worked under him, that they would not have a job after that.

And you folks who support these cops for not doing anything, and you also support cops who bust in doors on lies and shakey info from a CI, seems like you want your cake and to eat it too.

What's the difference between A caller wanting a health and welfare check and an informant with no evidence to back up his info and a caller in New York calling in a Swatting prank in California? Answer: the first does not get the door kicked in. The latter 2, cops trip over themselves to use the ninja gear.

Wagonman

June 18, 2009, 02:27 AM

So when a cop, swat team, busts down a door because of a "informant" who may or may not have been vetted and ends up being the wrong address, it's ok

No, and this happens so infrequently that it is almost a straw man.

But a voice on the phone about a medical emergency is not ok. Seems the adrenial junkie call gets the go ahead. Are cops today really that obtuse?

No, smart ones don't break the law. I am not breaking down any doors based on a voice on a phone.

emailed this thread to a 20 year veteran of LE, friend of the family. His response, well, was ***? And opined that if it were officers who worked under him, that they would not have a job after that.

Really, for doing what exactly? Not breaking down the door on shaky at best information? for not having X-Ray vison?

What's the difference between A caller wanting a health and welfare check and an informant with no evidence to back up his info and a caller in New York calling in a Swatting prank in California? Answer: the first does not get the door kicked in. The latter 2, cops trip over themselves to use the ninja gear. ***.

If I stipulate that you shouldn't enter a house without a legit warrant or being invited do you stipulate these Coppers did nothing wrong?

bigger hammer

June 18, 2009, 05:47 AM

So when a cop, swat team, busts down a door because of a "informant" who may or may not have been vetted

Round here, and I'm pretty sure that it's the same in the rest of the country, an informant must be either reliable, or corroborated by evidence. There must be evidence of some criminal activity and there must be exigent circumstances that mitigate getting a search warrant before a door is "busted down." If you have evidence of it properly happening some other way, please, let's see it.

and ends up being the wrong address, it's ok.

I don't recall anyone saying that a mistake is "OK." Can you show us one of us saying that?

But a voice on the phone about a medical emergency is not ok.

Not unless something happens to provide evidence that there is indeed a medical emergency inside. Hearing someone call for help, seeing someone on the floor, or seeing bloody footprints from the dog are such things. If the informant is present and identifies themself, or is known to the police they're deemed to be reliable and action would be taken, but as you put it, "a voice on the phone," no, it's not enough.

Seems the adrenial junkie call gets the go ahead.

No they don't.

Are cops today really that obtuse?

Are you really this incapable of understanding?

I emailed this thread to a 20 year veteran of LE, friend of the family. His response, well, was ***? And opined that if it were officers who worked under him, that they would not have a job after that.

I'd bet that after they broke in and found nothing, and he paid for a few doors and doorframes out of his own pocket, (sometimes as much as $1,000) he'd change his mind. This time it was real but usually it's not. Usually it's a crank call or someone making a mistake. I've already described a couple of them.

And you folks who support these cops for not doing anything, and you also support cops who bust in doors on lies and shakey info from a CI, seems like you want your cake and to eat it too.

Please show us anyone who supports breaking down a door based on information from a "shakey info from a CI."

What's the difference between A caller wanting a health and welfare check and an informant with no evidence to back up his info

If there's "no evidence to back up his info" then doors shouldn't be coming down.

and a caller in New York calling in a Swatting prank in California? Answer: the first does not get the door kicked in. The latter 2, cops trip over themselves to use the ninja gear.

Do you have some specific incident to back this up? I’m sure that it's happened, just about all of us have said that sometimes cops do the wrong thing, but when have any of us supported it?

MosinM38

June 18, 2009, 07:05 AM

I'd give them some slack.

It's bad but....

I am sure dozens of "Concerned family members" call police every day for trivial matters.

Think this is bad?

Can you imagine the upreoar if they had kicked down the door and for some reason everything was fin and she had decided not to go to the appointment?

OuTcAsT

June 18, 2009, 08:56 AM

O.K. This is really simple, and I will tell you why;

A close relative of mine works for my town's 911 dispatch center. After having her read this thread, and her husband, (who is a LEO), they both agree that the Police did everything they could in this instance. First, when a 911 call comes in, if it does not come from the residence in question, they will take note of where the call comes from, If it is a cell phone, or from another city (as the call in question was likely one or the other) it is considered to be somewhat "suspect" as there is no possible way to positively identify a voice on a phone. The request for a welfare check is not simply dismissed, LE or EMS is dispatched to check the premises as a priority.
They will knock on doors or windows, check for unlocked doors, look in windows (if possible) and call the home phone (if available) to attempt contact. Unless they have some evidence (they see someone lying on the floor thru the window, smoke is showing, evidence of a forcible entry, or the caller claims the occupant threatened suicide in the last few minutes) then that is where their responsibility ends. They have no legal authority to enter a private residence without evidence of an emergency. A voice on a phone is not substantial evidence in most cases. and understandably so. They both told me that a neighbor, or close relative, "at the scene", might be enough, if the evidence were strong enough to support a forced entry.

The law cuts both ways, the same law that protects us from an illegal search, (or a prank phone call) Also places "personal" responsibility firmly on the shoulders of you, your family, and friends, if you, or someone in your home, has special medical needs. I can take no umbrage with the officers in this case, they stayed within the law all the way, as it should be. Is it regrettable that this happened ? Absolutely, but the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the only persons who took a calculated risk, the Husband, and ultimately, the Wife.

johnwilliamson062

June 18, 2009, 09:38 AM

until the lawyers stop suing everyone for everything, don't expect a police officer to help you out when he is not required to. There are all kinds of things he could be liable for once he enters that house. Why don't officers unlock car doors for people anymore? It isn't b/c they are too busy. It only takes 30 seconds if they know what they are doing. It is b/c if they break the lock they may have to pay for it. Fifty years ago that was not true.

maestro pistolero

June 18, 2009, 10:38 AM

The lack of basic human compassion was traded off for the defense of CYA police officers, who didn't even have the wisdom or experience to articulate a proper reason for failing to act. 'We don't have the tools' amounts to 'the dog ate my homework'.

Shouldn't there be SOME means for a welfare check in such a circumstance? For example, what if a police officer in the location of the husband were to verify his ID and call it in? How long could that take? If I, as a civilian, in 5 seconds, can think of a way to verify the gentlemen's identity, why is that so insurmountable for LE professionals?

Let me ask all of you, including the OP, If YOUR pregnant wife, who you knew to be 100 percent reliable and prompt for doctors appointments, missed an appointment while you were 4 hours away, and was unable to be reached by phone, what would you want or expect the police to do? OH wait, they would take your word for it, because YOU have a BADGE. Put yourself in this man's position for two seconds. Is walking away really the responsible thing to do? Is it REALLY the only option, drive away and don't look back?

OuTcAsT

June 18, 2009, 11:01 AM

So when a cop, swat team, busts down a door because of a "informant" who may or may not have been vetted and ends up being the wrong address, it's ok.

Nope, That is an illegal act and all heads concerned should roll. Unfortunately, it usually does not work that way, but that is a different debate.

But a voice on the phone about a medical emergency is not ok.

First, how could the husband claim a "medical emergency" from 4 hours away, he is not there, and has only the fact that she is not answering the phone as evidence. Police responded, tried to see if they could find any evidence that someone was in trouble, all was quiet, end of story. Second, Do you really want it that easy to get a door kicked in ? Easy enough that I could call from right here and say " I'm Dustmonkey's Brother, (of course, I'm not) he is not answering the phone and I think he might be in the midst of a medical emergency could you swing by and kick in the door to check" ? I think not. You and I have come down on the same side of an argument such as this more than once, but this time you are a bit off-base friend. Put aside your outrage over abuses of LE powers that have occurred ( there are plenty, on that we agree) and look at this incident, you will see that the cops stayed lawful and that is a good thing. It is s shame this lady had to suffer this alone, and thank God she, and the baby are OK, but the blame goes on the husband, he knew there was an issue, and chose to leave her there alone, his attempt to shift his personal responsibility to someone else to cover his own negligence is the outrageous part of this story.

bigger hammer

June 18, 2009, 11:46 AM

The lack of basic human compassion was traded off for the defense of CYA police officers, who didn't even have the wisdom or experience to articulate a proper reason for failing to act. 'We don't have the tools' amounts to 'the dog ate my homework'.

I've already said that it's probable that excuse was given by the dispatcher so she (pretty sexist huh?) didn't have to give an long detailed explanation.

Shouldn't there be SOME means for a welfare check in such a circumstance? For example, what if a police officer in the location of the husband were to verify his ID and call it in? How long could that take? If I, as a civilian, in 5 seconds, can think of a way to verify the gentlemen's identity, why is that so insurmountable for LE professionals?

Unless someone at the PD he was calling recognized his voice or he called his own department and got them to call the PD where the home was, there's no way of verifying his identity. This is key to changing the situation, determining if he has the authority to give permission to enter.

Let me ask all of you, including the OP, If YOUR pregnant wife, who you knew to be 100 percent reliable and prompt for doctors appointments, missed an appointment while you were 4 hours away, and was unable to be reached by phone, what would you want or expect the police to do? OH wait, they would take your word for it, because YOU have a BADGE.

The difference is that there's a way to verify through official channels the identity of a police officer. And since it had gone though all those official channels if it turned out that she had a flat tire on her way to the doctor's office, certainly much more likely an occurrence than what we have here, he'd know that he was on the hook for damage that was caused.

There is a way to get all this done but depending on calls for service (this is not an known emergency) it might take just as long as it took him to drive home. He could have called an officer from the PD where he worked to his office and shown him his ID that had his home address on it. Failing that he could have used the company's records to establish that he DID live there. Then that officer could have his station call the PD where he lived, where his wife was and then he could have given permission.

Put yourself in this man's position for two seconds. Is walking away really the responsible thing to do? Is it REALLY the only option, drive away and don't look back?

It's the only thing that the law and policy lets us do these days.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply # zzz

johnbt

June 18, 2009, 02:35 PM

"If YOUR pregnant wife, who you knew to be 100 percent reliable and prompt for doctors appointments, missed an appointment while you were 4 hours away, and was unable to be reached by phone, what would you want or expect the police to do? "

Search every hospital emergency room; every ditch and waterway between the house and the doctor's office; every Wal-Mart pharmacy; and every doc in a box clinic; and put out a freaking apb you know. Well, you asked.

I mean, really, what evidence is there that my wife is at home and the police (coppers to those of you stuck in the 19th century or somewhere else) need to kick the door in.

John

TailGator

June 18, 2009, 03:37 PM

Did the dispatcher err in sending only police officers, without EMS/rescue people?

I understand the reluctance of police to break down doors on the basis of a telephone call, but the situation was that a man was concerned about his pregnant wife not responding, possibly for quite a period of time (not entirely clear from the article). The comparison to someone missing a lunch date or not answering a phone call may not be entirely apt; there was at least some reason to be concerned about a medical problem, and it turned out that those concerns were justified (with, admittedly, 20-20 hindsight).

Can someone educate us civilians about what tools that EMS/rescue people have and use to enter locked buildings?

ftd

June 18, 2009, 04:17 PM

The law cuts both ways, the same law that protects us from an illegal search, (or a prank phone call) Also places "personal" responsibility firmly on the shoulders of you, your family, and friends, if you, or someone in your home, has special medical needs. I can take no umbrage with the officers in this case, they stayed within the law all the way, as it should be. Is it regrettable that this happened ? Absolutely, but the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the only persons who took a calculated risk, the Husband, and ultimately, the Wife.

How did "special medical needs" become an issue in this case, besides the woman having an unexpected seizure?

How did the wife take a calculated risk? By getting pregnant?

Look, we all know that LEs have a really tough job and that they are abused for both doing and not doing. But aren't they supposed to investigate? Are there only 2 options - clicking out and busting down the door - in a situation like this? Maybe the abuse level would go down just a tad if more LEs tried just a little harder to actually help the people who employ them.

OuTcAsT

June 18, 2009, 05:29 PM

How did "special medical needs" become an issue in this case, besides the woman having an unexpected seizure?

I'm sorry, I just assumed that everyone had read the article that was posted in the OP concerning the fact that the woman was pregnant, and experiencing pain, enough so that she planned on seeing a doctor ASAP. (which, of course, turned out to be too late)
Pain is generally a good indicator that the body perceives something is not as it should be. My bad.

I would think this would qualify her as having a medical need. But this is only my opinion.

How did the wife take a calculated risk? By getting pregnant?

Usually, a sudden onset of pain, particularly during a pregnancy, would be treated as a symptom of a possible problem. I would submit that both husband, and wife took a risk by not seeking immediate medical attention, and by his leaving her alone, and going 4 hours away, only to seek attention at a later time.

But aren't they supposed to investigate?

You might also notice in the article that the police did respond, and investigate within the fullest extent allowed by legal means. They could find no evidence of a problem, reported as such, and left the home.

Are there only 2 options - clicking out and busting down the door

No, only 1 legal option.

in a situation like this?

The "situation" is that an unknown, male, claiming to be the husband of the occupant, called from a great distance away, and requested a welfare check of the woman in the home. Police responded, saw nothing to indicate that there was a problem, (or for that matter, anyone at home) and left.

I will ask the same question of you that I asked in an earlier post ;

Do you really want it that easy to get a door kicked in ? Easy enough that I could call from right here and say " I'm Dustmonkey's Brother, (of course, I'm not) he is not answering the phone and I think he might be in the midst of a medical emergency could you swing by and kick in the door to check" ?

It is a simple choice, either you want the protections the law offers against an unlawful forced entry into your home, or you do not.

Al Norris

June 18, 2009, 06:23 PM

I'm sorry, I just assumed that everyone had read the article that was posted in the OP concerning the fact that the woman was pregnant, and experiencing pain, enough so that she planned on seeing a doctor ASAP. (which, of course, turned out to be too late)
Pain is generally a good indicator that the body perceives something is not as it should be. My bad.
There's an awful lot of this article, and the resultant claim, that just didn't meet the smell test.

The above exemplifies my initial reaction. Just what was this husband thinking?

OuTcAsT, what I've found is that people read what they want to read. Just like they hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see.

When it comes to the police, some only see the bad. Facts, be damned.

bigger hammer

June 18, 2009, 07:29 PM

Look, we all know that LEs have a really tough job and that they are abused for both doing and not doing. But aren't they supposed to investigate? Are there only 2 options - clicking out and busting down the door - in a situation like this? Maybe the abuse level would go down just a tad if more LEs tried just a little harder to actually help the people who employ them.

What "abuse level" are you referring to? What would you have the police do in a situation like this?

OuTcAsT

June 18, 2009, 09:36 PM

Antipitas,

You are, of course, correct.

Michael Anthony

June 19, 2009, 07:12 AM

I'm with Antipitas, Outcast. You're talking to a brick wall it seems. The fact remains they had no legal authority or duty to enter. That's not your opinion... it is a fact... and people will still argue.

The very same people who cry out about their civil rights being violated are the ones who want the police to be "proactive." The truth is you don't want the police you think you want. If you lived in a country that was not free, the police would have the authority to kick in any door they want. It does indeed cut both ways.

Outcast also hit the nail on the head with his statements about their friends and family. Safety and welfare is a community problem (of which the police are a part), not just a police problem.

I think the ones crying out simply may not know how common the welfare check call is answered. They are split to three types of welfare checks: A) The caller just can't reach the person, B) The caller wants to harass the person or C) Various other BS.

Donn_N

June 19, 2009, 09:10 AM

bigger hammer

June 19, 2009, 09:24 AM

Aboagye says he asked police to break down the door but says police were unable to do so because they did not have the tools.

I stumbled onto this thread searching for something else, but the above sentence tells most of the story as far as I'm concerned.

It does? It seems to me that it's only a very minor, side issue, of the story.

There didn't seem to be any reluctance on the part of the police to break down the door, only that they were too whimpy to do so without tools.

They didn't break the door down because they had no cause to do so.

Yes, I read the posts saying the dispatcher probably lied rather than just say, "They can't legally do that, sir", but I'm not buying it.

It's pretty much guaranteed that had the dispatcher said what you suggest, the discussion would turn into the same sort of argument that we have here. Sorry, but police dispatchers have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in this.

Are dispatchers trained to just make stuff up rather than stating the simple truth?

The "Unofficial Mantra"of the Marine Corps is "Adapt, Improvise, Overcome." Sounds as if she "improvised." Uhoh! Is that more "militarization of the police?" lol

And while police don't generally break down the door of the wrong address, they do break down doors and perform raids on the basis of anonymous tips, so the idea that they couldn't break down the door on the say so of the victim's husband, is a little silly. [Emphasis added]

No they don't (at least not properly) "on the basis of ANONYMOUS tips." Since you disagree, please show us evidence to support this statement.

Wagonman

June 20, 2009, 11:59 AM

coppers to those of you stuck in the 19th century or somewhere else)

What does that comment mean?

Yes, I read the posts saying the dispatcher probably lied rather than just say, "They can't legally do that, sir", but I'm not buying it. Are dispatchers trained to just make stuff up rather than stating the simple truth?

Uh yeah, The Police are legally allowed to lie in the course of their duty-----kinda makes the playing field level since everyone lies to us.

And while police don't generally break down the door of the wrong address, they do break down doors and perform raids on the basis of anonymous
tips, so the idea that they couldn't break down the door on the say so of the victim's husband, is a little silly.

No they don't and if they do they will be punished.

For everyone who wanted the Police to kick in the door and save the day PM me your address and I will have the Police come to your home at 0 dark thirty, kick in your door and get you medical assistance.

Why couldn't the husband called a friend or family member to handle the situation? He could've broken every window or door LEGALLY.

JustDreadful

June 20, 2009, 12:59 PM

Why couldn't the husband called a friend or family member to handle the situation? He could've broken every window or door LEGALLY.

Now there's a sensible question

OuTcAsT

June 20, 2009, 03:03 PM

For everyone who wanted the Police to kick in the door and save the day PM me your address and I will have the Police come to your home at 0 dark thirty, kick in your door and get you medical assistance.

Or hell, just post it here on tha interwebz , Since there is no way a dispatcher could possibly be "tricked", or "lied to", you should have nothing to worry about ;)

ftd

June 20, 2009, 03:45 PM

Outcast and Antipitas,

Regarding "calculated risk" -

Sorry, I was referring to a later news posting than the one presented in this thread that said that the wife had a seizure which caused her black-out and the birth - no mention that she had any history of seizures. Could this have been anticipated? You decide. I don't think we have enough information to place al blame on the wife or husband.

Regarding other investigation options -

How about contacting the landlord (who has the legal authority to enter the apartment) to come and inspect the apartment. Not illegal and no lawsuit, just a little extra effort and time.

If LEs only look for evidence of a crime, why weren't emt's called or also called to the site?

I am not accusing the LEs or anyone else of any wrong doing, just suggesting that an outcome could have been different by using some other approaches.

OuTcAsT

June 20, 2009, 04:37 PM

Sorry, I was referring to a later news posting than the one presented in this thread that said that the wife had a seizure which caused her black-out and the birth - no mention that she had any history of seizures. Could this have been anticipated? You decide.

The article in the OP is very clear about the fact that the wife was experiencing an amount of pain the evening prior, that was alarming enough for her to consult a doctor, and make an appointment. While it is impossible to say for sure, the pain, (in her lower back) might indicate a premature onset of labor. The premature labor may have been the proximate cause of the seizure, rather than the opposite. Not stating fact, just speculation based on the story.

I don't think we have enough information to place al blame on the wife or husband.

On this point, I disagree. They both knew that there was something not quite right or, there would have not been enough concern to warrant a Doctors appointment.

I don't feel it unreasonable to think that they should have sought immediate medical attention, or at the least, the husband should have kept her under observation until the appointment, either directly, or through friends or family.

Regarding other investigation options -

How about contacting the landlord (who has the legal authority to enter the apartment) to come and inspect the apartment. Not illegal and no lawsuit,

First off, you are incorrect on a couple of the finer points about landlord rights, The landlord can inspect the property, but this usually requires advance notice, and, permission. Usually a landlord can only enter the apartment with that permission, or on an emergency (Fire, Flood) basis. Otherwise, it is illegal.

Now, Had the Husband called the landlord, and requested that he enter, that could likely have been done. The police, however, do not have the authority to make such a request. it would be the same as kicking the door.

If LEs only look for evidence of a crime, why weren't emt's called or also called to the site?

While I will not speak for LE, in general, a welfare check likely would include looking in windows, knocking on and checking doors, listening for moans, yells, screams, or any signs of trouble.
As an EMT, I can tell you that there is no evidence that I could find, that a cop would not also recognize as a sign of trouble. (Incidentally, lots of, if not most, LEO's are cross trained as medical first responders, EMTs or Paramedics.

Sorry to tell you, but this was not a failure of LE, to do their job. It is a failure of people taking personal responsibility for their own well being.

Michael Anthony

June 20, 2009, 11:00 PM

Outcast you are absolutely right on all points except for "lots of" or "most" LEOs also being EMTs. This is pretty rare in most areas.

I would say "some" are, but not "most" or even "lots."

Your description of what is done on a welfare check is pretty much dead-on, and echoes what Wagonman posted they usually entail. Without something to arouse suspicion, the job is done. And to answer the repeated point that will be raised: No, the dude on the phone does not arouse suspicion that something is going on. In fact in the same situation, my first guess would be this is her estranged husband trying to harass or control. That's just my personal opinion though.

Your last sentence is the end-all. Some people cannot and will not ever understand that because of the civil rights they hold so dear, some problems become solely theirs.

OuTcAsT

June 21, 2009, 10:10 AM

you are absolutely right on all points except for "lots of" or "most" LEOs also being EMTs. This is pretty rare in most areas

Mr. Anthony,

Thanks for clearing that up, I will tell you that it is becoming increasingly popular in my particular area, due to the rapid growth of population in my, and surrounding, counties.

Cross-training LEOs as Firefighters, and EMTs maximizes the manpower available for large scale situations, and, since LE is typically the first on the scene of car crashes, fights, and DV incidents, a trusted logistical assessment can be made before other assets start to roll.

It is also a win-win in the case of a fire fight, as an officer down can begin to receive medical care before EMTs could even enter the scene.

You may start to see this trend in your area, as budgets for personnel get smaller but, the population does not.

Some people cannot and will not ever understand that because of the civil rights they hold so dear, some problems become solely theirs.

Agreed, you simply cannot have it both ways. Either the law protects your rights to privacy, and against illegal search, or, you might just as well leave your front door open.

I don't think it's any surprise that I prefer my rights to stay intact, and will see to the well-being of my own family as required.

Stay Safe ! :)

ftd

June 21, 2009, 05:22 PM

Outcast,
First off, you are incorrect on a couple of the finer points about landlord rights, The landlord can inspect the property, but this usually requires advance notice, and, permission. Usually a landlord can only enter the apartment with that permission, or on an emergency (Fire, Flood) basis. Otherwise, it is illegal.

From: http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/HomelessnesstoHomeownership/PDFs/Landlord_Tenant_Handbook.pdf

The Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act

[introduction]
The VRLTA, Sections 55-248.2 through 55-248.40 of the Code of Virginia, was initially enacted into law in 1974. The VRLTA establishes the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants in Virginia. The VRLTA supersedes all local, county, and municipal landlord and tenant ordinances. It also prohibits certain lease clauses.

§ 55-248.10:1. Landlord and tenant remedies for abuse of access.
If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the landlord may recover actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees. If the landlord makes an unlawful entry or a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner or makes repeated demands for entry otherwise lawful but which have the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the conduct, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the tenant may recover actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees.

§ 55-248.18. Access; consent.
A. The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workmen or contractors. The landlord may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the tenant in case of emergency. The landlord shall not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant.

This clearly gives the landlord emergency access to the apartment. I could find no definition of the word "emergency", nor limitations to the term within the VRLTA. Maybe there have been court cases that have limited the term "emergency" in this act to "fire, flood". I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The article in the OP is very clear about the fact that the wife was experiencing an amount of pain the evening prior, that was alarming enough for her to consult a doctor, and make an appointment. While it is impossible to say for sure, the pain, (in her lower back) might indicate a premature onset of labor. The premature labor may have been the proximate cause of the seizure, rather than the opposite. Not stating fact, just speculation based on the story.

Sorry, but I can't do much about "might" or "may". Speculation is sometimes helpful. I speculate that the LEs should have done more investigation.

I don't feel it unreasonable to think that they should have sought immediate medical attention, or at the least, the husband should have kept her under observation until the appointment, either directly, or through friends or family.

The wife called her doctor the day before, when she had the pain. He could have told her to come in immediately or go to the emergency room. If he did, she definitely took a calculated risk by not following that advice. If the doctor told her to come in the next morning then I wouldn't fault her for waiting. We don't know. The husband said that she was fine before he left for work.

OuTcAsT

June 21, 2009, 05:53 PM

A quick lesson on Landlord/Tenant law, why would you think this law has this remedy;

If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access,

Injunctive relief requires the landlord appear before a judge, in court, to prove the right to reasonable access, or that it has been denied. Wonder why he can't just use the key? Hint: It's illegal. This may also give you some insight as to the spirit of the law as it pertains to "emergency" access without consent. It is typically frowned upon except in the event it is necessary to prevent, or contain, a catastrophic incident.
IE Fire/Flood. These laws tend to favor the privacy of the tenant over the right of inspection by a landlord. In other words, If you don't want your landlord to have access to your apartment, he must sue to get it. (or set it on fire) ;)

I speculate that the LEs should have done more investigation.

Ok, reasonable speculation, so let me ask, given that;

"And nobody responded, so I call 911 to come to my house and check my wife with my one-and-a-half-year (old) boy. So, when they came they knocked on the door and told me ... that nobody responded in the house, no TV, no noise, no nothing in the house," he said. [

what "more investigation" could be done within the law?

Understand that, as far as the police are concerned, all they have is, what amounts to an anonymous call that something may (speculation on the husband's part)
be wrong, in what appears to be a possibly empty (nobody home) apartment.

What would you have the police, firefighters, ems, do ?

bigger hammer

June 21, 2009, 06:36 PM

FTD quotes from the VRLTA and then writes this;

This clearly gives the landlord emergency access to the apartment.

Yes it does but only under certain conditions, none of which existed.

I could find no definition of the word "emergency", nor limitations to the term within the VRLTA. Maybe there have been court cases that have limited the term "emergency" in this act to "fire, flood". I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I can't speak for the law there, only here in CA. In this context "emergency" means such things as "a smell of natural gas emanating from the apartment." Ditto for "smoke" and such things as put other tenants in danger. It would also apply to "medical emergencies" of those inside the apartment, but it's already been pointed out that we have no indication of any such "emergency." It's only "after" the fact that we know that there was one.

Sorry, but I can't do much about "might" or "may". Speculation is sometimes helpful. I speculate that the LEs should have done more investigation.

I speculate that they did all they could have done. Perhaps you have a suggestion about what further steps they should have taken?

The wife called her doctor the day before, when she had the pain. He could have told her to come in immediately or go to the emergency room. If he did, she definitely took a calculated risk by not following that advice. If the doctor told her to come in the next morning then I wouldn't fault her for waiting. We don't know. The husband said that she was fine before he left for work.

Again showing us that there was no "emergency" known to anyone at the time.

ftd

June 21, 2009, 06:53 PM

Injunctive relief -

The same applies to the tenant, as previously quoted from section 55-248.10:1. So what? My point is that this act does not specify criminal penalties. Please note the terms "unreasonable" and "repeated".

If the landlord makes an unlawful entry or a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner or makes repeated demands for entry otherwise lawful but which have the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the conduct, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the tenant may recover actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees.

Section 55-248.18, previously quoted, addresses "Access; Consent", and says that the landlord can enter without gaining consent in an emergency.

Injunctive relief requires the landlord appear before a judge, in court, to prove the right to reasonable access, or that it has been denied. Wonder why he can't just use the key? Hint: It's illegal. This may also give you some insight as to the spirit of the law as it pertains to "emergency" access without consent. It is typically frowned upon except in the event it is necessary to prevent, or contain, a catastrophic incident.
IE Fire/Flood. These laws tend to favor the privacy of the tenant over the right of inspection by a landlord. In other words, If you don't want your landlord to have access to your apartment, he must sue to get it. (or set it on fire)

Injunctive relief is not about legality, it is about rights - there is no criminal penalties involved with this issue as defined by this act; also, no definition of "lawful" and unlawful" acts is provided. If a truly "unlawful" act occured, it must be rosecutable through other laws in addition to the injunctive relief specified in this act.

I have found no additional references to your contentions concerning "typically frowned upon" or "catastrophic incident. IE Fire/Flood". Could these be from policy manuals instead of law or court reviews?

what "more investigation" could be done within the law?

I've already said that I think they should have done more to try to gain access (NOT "break down the door"), by contacting the landlord.

What would you have the police, firefighters, ems, do ?

EMs and firefighter in an EM roll - the same as I have said for police. Firefighters in a fire roll - most big city fire Department have infra-red devices to detect heat (as in fire) - make sure there is no fire and call the LEs to investigate a false alarm if no fire is detected. In an apartment situation, I would also expect them to seek out the landlord for access/inspection as the danger to mutiple dwellings could be catastrophic.

publius42

June 21, 2009, 07:01 PM

The problem stated in the article was that they didn't have the tools to break down a door. That's silly. Any reasonably resourceful person can break most doors.

That could be wrong information in the article, and the discussion here is about whether or not to break a door because someone on the phone asked you to do so. I can't blame a cop for not doing that, but how hard would it be to identify the person on the phone in less than four hours? Have him drive to the nearest police station and identify himself and place the call from there with a bunch of cops present.

maestro pistolero

June 21, 2009, 07:36 PM

Have him drive to the nearest police station and identify himself and place the call from there with a bunch of cops present.

Exactly. I mentioned this in an earlier post. It's fascinating how the OP and those who seem to be on the 'other side of the coin'* are more concerned with how the officers were justified than how they displayed so little imagination in finding a way to exercise the prerogative of the husband to authorize a forced-entry welfare check on his wife. The husband's fear under the circumstances was reasonable and correct as it turned out.

*An interesting title with built-in assumptions about which side most folks fall on.

bigger hammer

June 21, 2009, 07:39 PM

what "more investigation" could be done within the law?

I've already said that I think they should have done more to try to gain access (NOT "break down the door"), by contacting the landlord.

Since there was no "emergency" the landlord could not have entered.

What would you have the police, firefighters, ems, do ?

EMs and firefighter in an EM roll - the same as I have said for police. Firefighters in a fire roll - most big city fire Department have infra-red devices to detect heat (as in fire) - make sure there is no fire and call the LEs to investigate a false alarm if no fire is detected.

They would not have detected a fire and there was no "false alarm" of one.

In an apartment situation, I would also expect them to seek out the landlord for access/inspection as the danger to mutiple dwellings could be catastrophic.

Since they would not have detected a fire, there would be no need for (or a right to) "access/inspection."

bigger hammer

June 21, 2009, 07:41 PM

how hard would it be to identify the person on the phone in less than four hours? Have him drive to the nearest police station and identify himself and place the call from there with a bunch of cops present.

I suggested something similar waaaaay back in post #28.

maestro pistolero

June 21, 2009, 07:46 PM

From post #26

For example, what if a police officer in the location of the husband were to verify his ID and call it in? How long could that take? If I, as a civilian, in 5 seconds, can think of a way to verify the gentlemen's identity, why is that so insurmountable for LE professionals?

So some of us, at least, agree that more could be done in such a circumstance to effect a welfare check.

bigger hammer

June 21, 2009, 07:54 PM

Exactly. I mentioned this in an earlier post.

It's not our job to come up with such solutions. Rather, it's the job of individuals to take care of themselves. Had he taken responsiblity firght form the start, this never would have happened. Now that it has, he's trying to point the finger at anyone he can rather than to accept his own screw–up.

It's fascinating how the OP and those who seem to be on the 'other side of the coin'* are more concerned with how the officers were justified than how they displayed so little imagination in finding a way to exercise the prerogative of the husband to authorize a forced-entry welfare check on his wife.

I'd suggest that you harken back to the OP where the question was not "how do the officers verify the man's identity" but was defending the officers for not kicking in the door.

The husband's fear under the circumstances was reasonable and correct as it turned out.

He should have stayed home and taken her to the hospital. It's not up to the police to come up with solutions for every situation that people create. It's great that you're able to do so in the comfort of your living room.

OuTcAsT

June 21, 2009, 07:56 PM

but how hard would it be to identify the person on the phone in less than four hours? Have him drive to the nearest police station and identify himself and place the call from there with a bunch of cops present.

A valid question publius, Let me ask you this, if you are in a city, 4 hours from your home in any direction, could you, with the contents of your wallet, or vehicle;

A. Prove that you live at the address you are interested in and that you are either the owner, or renter on the lease ?

B. Prove that you are legally married to, or co-habitating with any person in that home ?

C. Prove that there is actually an emergency at that address that would require a
forced entry ?

If you can do all those things, ( answer honestly ) then you are well beyond the ability of the average person.

And unless you can do all of those things, to the satisfaction of a police officer, you are right back at square one.

I've already said that I think they should have done more to try to gain access (NOT "break down the door"), by contacting the landlord.

OK, fair enough. Tell ya what, lets test your theory, (if you wish)

Do you rent ? Or have a friend or relative that rents, ?

If so, have someone go to the manager, or super, and tell them you think someone inside may need medical attention, see if they will unlock the door on that premise.
Your findings should prove to be educational.

You mentioned having the police contact the landlord and ask for access, the answer to that question is simple, the police do not have a legal right to do so, and most landlords are not gonna risk a lawsuit from a tenant for opening that door without a warrant to do so.

The what-if's in this story are mind-boggling at the least.
It seems that if someone hears the words "pregnant woman" or "child" that somehow common sense, and legalities go right out the window.

This situation is not that difficult to understand, If it worked the way you imagine it should, then you would never have any expectation of privacy, either in a home you own, or especially in a home you rent.

Wagonman

June 21, 2009, 08:01 PM

OuTcAsT

June 21, 2009, 08:35 PM

It's fascinating how the OP and those who seem to be on the 'other side of the coin'* are more concerned with how the officers were justified than how they displayed so little imagination in finding a way to exercise the prerogative of the husband to authorize a forced-entry

What I find "fascinating" is that you believe that, from 4 hours away, the husband HAS that prerogative.

Again I ask :

How will he Prove he is the rightful owner, or tenent at that address? Drivers license ? That only says he lives there, nothing more. Unless he happens to have a Deed or Lease with him he is short on proof.

How will he Prove that the woman at the address is his Wife, Girlfriend, etc.? Hope he has his marriage license, Oh ! I know ! a Picture of them together !

How will he prove that this woman even lives there, or exists for that matter?

How will he Prove that there is an emergency, or for that matter, that she is even home ? Car in the driveway ?
Maybe, or, she could have left with someone.

The "imagination" possibilities are boundless.

Old Wanderer

June 21, 2009, 11:41 PM

I almost agree with OUTCAST.

I had a similar situation happen to me 10 years ago. My mother living in another state 7 hours away. Talked to her Thursday night, advised her would not call on Friday, flew home on Saturday, and tried to call. No answer...Tried later, no answer, checked with all close relatives, no body knew anything.

Call the local police for a welfare check....they followed all the steps of above, and could see nothing....but did report seeing her walker...If the walker was there she was there.

I had to call out a locksmith, and have him open the door for the police, ($125). There they found my mother laying on the floor knees bloody from trying to get up for 3 days. She had fallen off the bed hanging up the phone after talking to me on Thursday....

So having a locksmith open the door was the key difference in my case. (And probably cheaper than repairing a kicked in door.

OuTcAsT

June 22, 2009, 02:51 PM

Call the local police for a welfare check....they followed all the steps of above, and could see nothing....but did report seeing her walker...If the walker was there she was there.

Which means they likely looked in a door or window to see the appliance, you knew the significance of the walker and acted on it;

I had to call out a locksmith, and have him open the door for the police, ($125). There they found my mother laying on the floor knees bloody from trying to get up for 3 days. She had fallen off the bed hanging up the phone after talking to me on Thursday....

Those two first words are the gold here. You realized that you had to take responsibility for the situation, the police could not legally call that locksmith any more than they could legally kick the door in. The locksmith only needs to satisfy himself that the bill will be paid for him to legally do his job. A different and higher standard applies to emergency responders.

( I'll bet that once the door was opened the officers merely had to shout, and hear a response from your Mother before they were justified to enter the house)

Also, the thing some folks just don't seem to understand is, if the police officers in the OP had looked in the window and actually seen anything IE: Blood, overturned furniture, the toddler running around, or heard any noise such as a moan, cry, scream, They would have booted the door.

Sorry to hear your Mom had to go through that ordeal and, glad things turned out OK. :)

maestro pistolero

June 22, 2009, 03:50 PM

What I find "fascinating" is that you believe that, from 4 hours away, the husband HAS that prerogative.

What in the world does being 4 hours away have to do with his prerogative to authorize forcible entry? It only goes to verifying his identity, which we've established could be done by a PD in his local.

Again I ask :

How will he Prove he is the rightful owner, or tenent at that address? Drivers license ? That only says he lives there, nothing more. Unless he happens to have a Deed or Lease with him he is short on proof.

Absurd. We are supposed to carry a deed or lease around with us?
By your criteria, he wouldn't have been able to authorize entry if he were standing on the porch, because the documents you think are required would be in the house.

If the husband were suspected of a crime and there were probable cause, his address of record (as in driver's license) would be entirely sufficient to get a search warrant for the premises. The judge would assume the information to be correct and issue the warrant.

Why, then wouldn't it be sufficient for the lawful occupant to verify his home address for the purposes of a welfare check?

How will he prove that the woman at the address is his Wife, Girlfriend, etc.? Hope he has his marriage license, Oh ! I know ! a Picture of them together! How will he prove that this woman even lives there, or exists for that matter?

Oh pulleeeez! He wouldn't need to, since he is the lawful occupant. He alone could authorize entry for good cause, like a welfare check on his pregnant, sick, and missing wife.

How will he Prove that there is an emergency, or for that matter, that she is even home ? Car in the driveway ?

Again, irrelevant. He alone could authorize entry for good cause or no cause.

Maybe, or, she could have left with someone.

SO WHAT! Welfare check completed. Wife not home. . . end of story.

The "imagination" possibilities are boundless.

Except when it comes to facilitating the welfare check for the out of town husband.

OuTcAsT

June 22, 2009, 05:12 PM

which we've established could be done by a PD in his local.

Would you, Please point out where that has been established and how it was established ? I am sorry but, I must have missed it.

By your criteria, he wouldn't have been able to authorize entry if he were standing on the porch, because the documents you think are required would be in the house.

You are attempting to change the criteria by substitution, sorry, but that dog won't hunt. If the man were "standing on the porch", he would not need police to kick down the door, or, do a welfare check, I would think a key would be the only thing he might need. Nice try though.

If the husband were suspected of a crime and there were probable cause, his address of record (as in driver's license) would be entirely sufficient to get a search warrant for the premises. The judge would assume the information to be correct and issue the warrant.

Again, you attempt to obfuscate. Notice the underlined words from your quote ? Particularly the words "probable cause" and "Judge" There is a reason that those things are necessary for another of the highlighted words, "warrant"
Those reasons are the same reasons that a "Forcible Entry" is not likely to be authorized by a dispatcher over a phone, or another cop 4 hours away. It's this inconvenient little thing called the Constitution.

He alone could authorize entry for good cause or no cause.

Apparently not, the guy in the OP was not successful at it. He had no Proof, hence, no prerogative.

ETA: I have been involved in more locked threads, and had more accusations of "cop bashing" leveled at me than almost anyone else on this subfora; yet, even I can see the officers acted responsibly in this case. How the hell did this happen? :eek::confused:

armsmaster270

June 22, 2009, 05:35 PM

On your drug lab the cops will get a search warrant then bust the door so they won't lose all their evidence in court. The only way to kick the door is if you can explain how there were exigent circumstances that led you to believe kicking the door was the only thing to do. If the officers walked around the house looking in windows and saw her on the floor you are good to go. Unfortunatly in todays Sue happy world Morally right or wrong legally they were right.

Bud Helms

June 22, 2009, 06:36 PM

Fascinating. Not only do I find myself completely convinced of the other side of an argument, I am in wonder at those who still are not.

You won't hear this come out of my mouth or off my keyboard very often, but I admire the patience and tenacity coming from you "coppahs" in this one.

alloy

June 22, 2009, 06:49 PM

maestro pistolero

June 22, 2009, 07:23 PM

If you don't have a key, rental agreement or a deed with your name on it, you are obviously wanting to break in to the house for nefarious reasons unrelated to to the health of your father. There is no legal path available to you to come to the aid of your father without endangering the careers of the officers who take the call. :rolleyes: I wouldn't wait for the police to open the door if I were you.

alloy

June 22, 2009, 07:28 PM

Yes, well I usually have a tire iron in the car so if it ever comes up, and this is really how it is....no need to bother anyone with my troubles.

OuTcAsT

June 22, 2009, 07:35 PM

Ok what does this get me?

"Hello 911, I am standing on the porch at my elderly fathers house, he asked me to come visit a few minutes ago, but now he doesn't answer the door and I think he is home because I see his hat thru the window and he never goes anywhere without his fedora. He has heart trouble so I'm kinda worried, can you send someone over?"

Good question, let's analyze ;

You are: "Standing on the porch of your elderly Father's house" and you can get "no answer" at the door, You seem to have a suspicion that he is home, due to the forgotten fedora. Further, you fear that, since he has a history of "heart trouble" his health might be in jeopardy.

Since you do not have any legal constraints such as, probable cause, nor are you bound by laws against Illegal Search And it is unlikely that your Father, if he is still alive, will prosecute you for breaking and entering or burglary (even if you are wrong) I would think the logical course of action would be for You to forcibly enter the house, by whatever means necessary. I would think the next logical step would be to verify your Father's presence, and condition. The Final step would be to call 911 and request medical help if he is still alive, or request Police assistance if he has expired. Of course, if he is simply not home you will likely have some 'splainin' to do to him, and a door to repair.

Is there no middle ground?

Yes, there is ! The "Middle Ground" of which you speak is commonly referred to as "personal responsibility".

:cool:

OuTcAsT

June 22, 2009, 07:43 PM

If you don't have a key, rental agreement or a deed with your name on it, you are obviously wanting to break in to the house for nefarious reasons unrelated to to the health of your father.

Respectfully, His post stated quite clearly what his motives were.

There is no legal path available to you to come to the aid of your father

There absolutely is, and it does not require a Police officer be present.

I wouldn't wait for the police to open the door if I were you.

Agreed, If he requires medical attention, and you are on the porch, you can respond much more quickly, and possibly further a better outcome.

Yes, well I usually have a tire iron in the car so if it ever comes up,

This would make an excellent tool for a forcible entry, good to remember. ;)

alloy

June 22, 2009, 07:47 PM

Well I ask out of curiosity, and leading this thread down a slippery slope isn't the attempt, but you are suggesting that I take responsibility when in doubt and that seems reasonable enough to me.

Shadi Khalil

June 22, 2009, 07:53 PM

how bout simply calling a friend or relative to save the day....repeating myself.

That would have been the smartest thing to do. In this situation I think the police should have taken some sort of measure to ensure and confirm the safety of a pregnant woman and her child. This would have probably been more easily facilitated had a relative or friend come to the apartment. If the officers acted within the scope of their authority, thats fine. I live in a place where their are far more police than there is actual crime. When you call the police, you get a fire truck, ambulance and usually another cop who cruises in to see whats going on. Then after the incident you get a follow visit or phone call. Plenty of time, man power and money in NOVA.

OuTcAsT

June 22, 2009, 08:02 PM

You won't hear this come out of my mouth or off my keyboard very often, but I admire the patience and tenacity coming from you "coppahs" in this one.

Dang Bud, I'm not in LE but, Don't I at least get an "honorable mention" ? ;)

Bud Helms

June 22, 2009, 08:43 PM

Yes, you most certainly do, from my perspective. Thanks for the show. ;)

DougO83

June 22, 2009, 09:36 PM

Can someone educate us civilians about what tools that EMS/rescue people have and use to enter locked buildings?

Yes, we have the Fire Department. And they have halligan tools and super sledges and the like on their trucks. HOWEVER, we are bound, at least down here, by the same standard as LE. If we don't have any evidence of a reason to enter a home for an emergency, we don't enter. Now if there is fairly solid reason to believe an emergency is taking place inside the home such as the car is in the drive-way running and it is apparent that it has been running for some time with nobody answering the door, I would personally use that as grounds to enter after 'staging' and awaiting LE.

RE: the OP. I think the coppers acted on the level in this situation. Of course, I would have been upset had it been my wife and all, but I would have been equally upset if I was laying on the couch asleep and the boys in black(they don't wear blue here) busted my door in because some smartarsed neighbor or friend called in a 'welfare check.' When I was younger, go ahead and laugh, I felt like cops used the law as a reason to act on one extreme or the other. Now that I work in armed security and spend a great deal of time BS'ing with our local LEO's and working around them, I can understand a great deal of why they do what they do.