Couple questions....Attorneys here?

[riverrat1]

What is the name of your state? Tennessee

For any attorneys in this forum.

Could you give me an example or two of how the following would be ACCEPTABLE AND LEGAL procedure? Before you answer, please keep the following in mind.

1. This was not a visit to "arrest" anyone, but an investigative visit.

2. No consent was given to enter.

3. 100% certainty there was no search warrant.

Situation:

Plainclothes officer knocks at door. Door is answered by person with no criminal record and not the subject of any investigation. Plainclothes officer forces his way in and begins to search residence. A moment later uniformed officer enters and is told to arrest person who answered door for suspected contraband found after entry.

[GatorLaw]

was there an arrest warrant?

where was this contraband located? (in plain sight?)

Was this a mobile home/RV/trailer type home?

what was the reaction of the person answering the door when the police officer entered? (did he tell the officer to leave, etc.?)

[>Charlotte<]

Also, when do you have to turn this in?

[tranquility]

Under the facts you lay out, it is suspicious. But, fourth amendment issues are all based on the totality of the circumstances. There are many possibilities and one can only issue spot when the specific facts are laid out and not a summary designed for a result. As to guessing the possibilities, I'll leave that for someone who wants to write an outline of search and seizure law. There are already many out there. See your local librarian.

[riverrat1]

Yea, I realise there are may possibilities but I just wondered if you could think of any reasons how they could get away with this.

No arrest warrant was being served. Arrest warrant was issued after the entry and as far as plain sight, not plain sight from outside the house (which is the only "lawful" position/vantage point I can think of.)

House on a foundation.

Reaction was conversational, trying to figure out who the person was without getting any answers only a couple questions until the cop pushed his way in. Person was not aware it was a cop until a uniformed arrived several minutes later.

[Some Random Guy]

Door is answered by person with no criminal record and not the subject of any investigation. Plainclothes officer forces his way in and begins to search residence.

These two sentences make no sense.

There is no way that the police will send a plainclothes officer to force their way into random people's homes and search for contraband. If you want to have the evidence seized during the search thrown out for your court case, have your lawyer get copies of the police report and examine the rest of the facts that you have left out here.

Some random things that may make the search legal:
1. They were searching the residence for a fugitive believed to be there and stumbled on the contraband.

2. A resident of the home was on probation and therefore the police have the right to search the residence (though there is no reason to use a plainclothes officer for this)

3. What you thought wasn't visible fom outside the home really was.

[tranquility]

As to guessing the possibilities, I'll leave that for someone who wants to write an outline of search and seizure law. There are already many out there. See your local librarian.

[riverrat1]

the plot thickens. Interesting replies. Some Random Guy....your comments especially. I know that the purpose of the visit was "to conduct an investigation." It was to question a few of the people that reside at the address.

I agree with you....very odd, the entire thing is very odd. I don't want to give to much information here, but I do appreciate the insight I've been given.

Lemme ask ya this - hypothetically if a prior resident, on probation - who at the time of the search was incarcerated (arrested by the same department.) How strong of an argument might the police have that they were doing a probationary search??

I think it's weak, considering the purpose of the visit (on affidavit) was "an investigative visit" unrelated to any probation. The fact that there was no probation officer, but a plain clothes detective.

As far as the plain sight, I think they'd be grasping there for reasons I don't want to divulge. Even if they could see the suspected contraband, according to my research it would still require extinuating circumstances which I really can't see existed. In all my research the alleged illegal items even if visible would not permit a warrantless entry.

I welcome any more insight and will keep ya'll posted. This is a very intriguing case to me. I have copies of the arrest warrants and am very interested in seeing how this all plays out.

[tranquility]

Arrest warrants? Ah...the plot thickens. Tune in next week when riverrat1 decides to spin out some other circumstance which adds to the totality.

Same useless time, same useless thread.

[Some Random Guy]

The proper next step is to involve a lawyer who will have access to all to all of the facts and not just th etidbits you are feeding us. The key facts would include the rest of that affadavit where the officer explains why he entered the dwelling.