Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure

That last one was too interesting to pass up -- WHY did they hate your client? Be very general -- I'm not asking you to violate the sanctity of priviledge, but just in general, what was it about the guy that made him hateable?

 

Your judge? So in other words, you paid him off?

 

I can understand leeway, but I believe it can be equally applied to either situation.

What you're saying is that the police have the authority to search however they want, but such is an abuse of the power they're given? This confuses me. If an officer breaks into his neighbor's house and steals his TV, is that theft or abuse of power? What if it's for a criminal case (somehow)? What if it's for his own use? I'm asking seriously, because I don't see an obvious distinction.

Not having lived through that period (or known anyone who lived under those laws), I don't have that perspective, but it seems to me that the issue is more presence of any limitations, and subsequent inforcement of said limitations, not which limitations. If police are allowed to get away with breaking into a citizen's home when they should be arrested for it, they can probably also get away with submitting illegally aquired evidence into trial. It's a matter of corruption in the system.

It isn't always like that, but I'd bet most cases where illegally aquired evidence comes up, it comes close. I doubt anyone would make a stink if it were insignificant evidence. I can't imagine a lawyer arguing, "Yes, my client's lover's panties were found in his appartment, but it shouldn't be admissible because the search was improper." Who cares if it's improper, the 'evidence' found has every reason to be there. Of course, from stories I've heard of lawyers, I guess I could believe them doing just about anything to pad their bill.

 

Your example is an ordinary crime, a case of burglary and theft and damage of property - neither of which are part of a cops job description. Searches, if necessary to find evidence of a crime, are part of his job, and when he is on duty, he can use those powers.

If he errs honestly and still unlawfully searches your house in good faith, it is no crime. He might still face disciplinary consequences because he may have violated regulations.

When a cop searches your house in bad faith - if he knows he is not allowed to do that - then he indeed commits, depending on the details of the case, the crimes of damage of property, burglary and trespassing. Even more so in case he for example forges a search warrant ...

Gotta run!

 

Ok, so if it's a good-faith search, even if the officer is mistaken about the legitimacy, it's within the bounds of his duty and not a crime. If it's a bad-faith search, and there isn't even an excuse of legitimacy, then it's a crime. Do I have that right?

That does make sense, though I think it could be applied to the "punish the police" system, too. If the search is "good faith" (i.e. they get a warrant, but it's for the wrong address, but they search the right address, for which they have no warrant), then in-house disciplinary procedures should suffice for anyone and everyone who messed up. If it's bad-faith (police have no warrant or probable cause, DA blatantly lied to a judge to get the warrant, etc.) then someone should go to jail. Either way, I'd like to see the evidence in trial.

 

In the UK the police can search with or without warrant, there is a time scale relating to an offence, for example, if the police search a car or person and find drugs or weapons etc, their house can be searched within a period of time with haste to procure further evidence to the original charge, coming back 3 days later would require a warrant.

If police are near a house and they pick up the smell of drugs then can search the property.

Anyone arrested will always be searched, if theyre in a vehicle it too will be searched, there are multiple powers that allow this - whether to procure further evidence or simply establish that the person or vehicle doesnt contain anything that may be harmful to officers.

Officers are only liable for their conduct, if they break into your house they personally are not liable for that offence.... as long as their on duty, the police insurer will deal with any damage and if the search was unlawful the police can simply apologise, if you have a complaint then it is dealt with by the IPCC which will investigate the officers conduct and see if they have acted in a manner unbecoming an officer, an officer can be suspended or sacked for such an offence.

 

NOG,
yes you got that right.

And Shoshino, makes a good point that I forgot to mention. In Germany it is so that cops when they cause damage or harm when on duty - the state will pay compensation, not the cop.

A relatively far reaching immunity from personal liability is what protects police officers on duty. That's the protection the state offers for policemen, officials, soldiers. If it was different, nobody would dare become a cop or public official. The state can hardly expect to send people on the line of duty to enforce state laws or under state orders and to perform their given duties under threat of disciplinary measures or punishment - but still be personally liable for any damage they may (have to) cause in the line of duty.

Imagine you have a house, and cops come along and hear disturbing screams from the inside that sound like a damsel in distress. To save the fair lady, they kick in the door, go in - to find out you've been at it again, watching horror flicks (an old one, that one, I know). The state will then have to pay for a new door, and not the heavy booted officer. That is also sensible, because cops and public officials in general are not that well paid. The state is the preferable debtor.

In case he acts in bad faith, or grossly negligient, and kicks in the door for example to ruin your evening, or because he hasn't kicked in a door the entire day and it was about time - then the state will pay your new door, but the state will then also demand the money from the (soon to be ex-) police officer. That's how we handle it in Germany, anyway

 

See, Ragusa, in the case of good-faith acts, that's entirely reasonable, and I understand it completely, but bad-faith acts should be punished by the law. If the officer just goes off and completely neglects due process and due cause and due dilligence and due everything, (s)he is not acting as a cop any more. They have abandoned their duty and, IMO, any protection they may expect from it at that point.

 

Yeah, but NOG, in Ragusa's post he even said that if the cop is just a jerk and is obviously acting in bad faith, he will be a

Getting your butt fired seems like a fair punishment for blatant abuse of authority.

 

Who says they aren't punished?

A cop who kicks in your door for fun will probably lose his job and be prosecuted for damaging your property. Yes, the state will pay you your damage, but the cop then will in return owe the state that money. They won't give him a free ride because he's a cop.

 

If police execute a blatantly illegal search, they'll definitely be disciplined, they'll probably be fired, and they may well face civil suits/fines. I want them imprisoned.

 

As long as an officer can justify what they have done, the force will back them

 

Define 'justify'.

 

Since when are damage of property, i.e. vandalism (as in prying open a door), trespassing, duress and so forth not criminal offences? If they are convicted of any of the above they will face punishment for crimes, including jail.

 

Even if they did so as an attempt to procure evidence for an investigation? I don't think that's the case in the US (though correct me if you know better). If that's the case, then why do we need to ban the evidence?

 

To provide further disincentive to perform illegal searches. Not every illegal search is conducted by smashing someone's door in. It is perfectly possible for a police officer to illegally search a residence without vandalizing, trespassing (if you let the officer in, he isn't trespassing), or threatening the occupant.