Baby calls 911 and gets dad arrested for.......

[Infinite]

Yeah, well, our Muslim president will blow you up! ALAH! *boom*

[Drofder2004]

While that is true, it doesn't make any difference. NM is right. The law is the law and the plant can't be used as evidence. It'll be almost impossible to find him guilty of anything.

you do not need a warrant to investigate a phone call. What part of that is unclear? :S

The fact they searched the house was on the premise that the guy failed to answer the door and was found inside alone. I can assure you, the evidence will stand as the police had every right to investigate the situation if they believed the situation was not as it seems, and they were right.

Here's a Brit stomping all over your American Law...

Many 911 calls result in police officers entering a person's home. A person's home enjoys the highest levels of protection from government intrusion under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (4) The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that "physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed." (5) Thus, the general rule is that "searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." (6) Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has established a few narrowly crafted exceptions to the warrant requirement. These exceptions allow the police to act when "the public interest require[s] some flexibility in the application of the general rule that a valid warrant is a prerequisite for a search." (7)

Under one such exception, officers may conduct a warrantless, nonconsensual entry and search of a residence when, due to exigent circumstances, there is insufficient time to obtain a search warrant. The Supreme Court has recognized the following emergency exceptions to the search warrant requirement: 1) prevent escape; (8) 2) prevent harm to the officers or others; (9) 3) prevent the destruction of evidence; (10) 4) hot pursuit of a criminal suspect; (11) and 5) to render immediate aid to a person in need of assistance. (12) This article focuses on police actions to render immediate aid to a person in need of assistance because many 911 calls to the police involve such emergencies.

1. If the police smell drugs, they are entitled to search the building to avoid destruction of evidence.
2. If the police believe there is someone in danger in the house, it is their duty to assist them.

So, how about it, you still want to question it? :S

[Soviet]

However, they were not entering the house on pretense of drugs.

[Drofder2004]

However, they were not entering the house on pretense of drugs.

You just wont give up will you.

I have produced the law stating their allowance, the least you could do is provide the police report stating they entered because they thought it would be fun to kick the door in.

brb, let me get the uncut version which will give you a reason for entering the property >.<

[Drofder2004]

#1

One court has noted that "[a] 911 call is one of the most common--and universally recognized--means through which police and other emergency personnel learn that there is someone in a dangerous situation who urgently needs help."

Ok, so, a phone call to 911, the emergency services is universally recognised as an emergency or some one who needs urgent help. Urgent, no time to get a warrant.

Now, we have now established, that a phone call was made and when the police responded, nobody answered the door. Fact (as reported). Police are now under obligation to consider that call as an emergency that requires urgent attention. That, stated by a court. Continuing on.

To make a lawful warrantless, nonconsensual entry and search to render aid, the police must "reasonably believe" that an emergency situation exists requiring immediate police intervention. (16) Most courts have interpreted this to mean officers must have probable cause. (17) A federal appellate court has explained that "[p]robable cause for a forced entry in response to exigent circumstances requires finding a probability that a person is in 'danger.'" (18) One commentator has summarized the prevailing test used by many courts to review emergency warrantless, nonconsensual entries and searches as 1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property; 2) the search must not be motivated primarily by intent to arrest and seize evidence; and 3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched. (19)

So, the police need reasonable belief, this is an opinion. Do remember, we are not police and what we believe to be unreasonable is not our call. Secondly, we established that a phone call is considered an emergency, this law gives them the right to force entry without warrant, because there is reasonable belief of an emergency. They did not enter the property to arrest or seize evidence, they were investigating a police phone call. Once entry had been made into the house, there was a sufficient enough cause (be it unconvinced emergency was a baby accident or that they smelt what they thought was marijuana). The law I posted before hand stated the police may continue without warrant if they thought destruction of evidence was possible.

i'm going to contact my lawyer >.<

[[SoE]_Zaitsev]

/popcorn

[Soviet]

k, I'm done defending nm. This stopped being fun the second stuff started being sited. I prefer intellectual debate over who can google search the best.

[JDogg]

/popcorn

/drinks, this could be fun.

[Drofder2004]

k, I'm done defending nm. This stopped being fun the second stuff started being sited. I prefer intellectual debate over who can google search the best.

I started by providing my opinion and I had my opinion blasted down by yours and NM's. I knew that my opinion was very likely to be true by state of law, and as a non-US citizen, not knowing the laws, I did some research. I then provided facts to why you were both wrong.

I then get told this wasn't "fun". Shit if I knew it was about being fun I would of quoted some fucking shakespeare or something.

[Nightmare]

I guess we could settle this by watching the trial in court, and how it's played out.

[Soviet]

Pretty much. While you've sited laws I seem to remember through my knowledge something about evidence and stuff. However, I honestly can't be arsed to look it up. Let's just see how it plays out.

[Drofder2004]

I guess we could settle this by watching the trial in court, and how it's played out.

Pay my flight and I shall meet you at the court room

[Drofder2004]

Pretty much. While you've sited laws I seem to remember through my knowledge something about evidence and stuff. However, I honestly can't be arsed to look it up. Let's just see how it plays out.

The law is what I posted:

The police cannot unreasonably enter a house for gathering evidence, unless they feel the evidence may need to be ceased before its destruction. So in other words, if they wait for a warrant, the drug grower will just simply ditch and move on with the goods.

[[SoE]_Zaitsev]

I don't even know where to get the stuff. Although it's easier to get in London than in my town I bet

[Neon]

I don't even know where to get the stuff. Although it's easier to get in London than in my town I bet

You'd be correct, London is the best place in the UK to get drugs