• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

if a probationer is not at home, are police allowed to kick in doors?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

elviram

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? ca
if, when, officers come to do a compliance sweep of a probationers house, and the probationer is not home, are the police allowed to kick in the doors? upon hearing someone banging on the door, my elder aunt (who doesn't live there) opened the door, the screen door was locked, the police then stated compliance sweep, then stated my roommates name. I went to the door, with a towel on my head and one on my body, because I had just gotten out of the shower. I told them my roommate was not home, but if they gave me a minute to get dressed, I would let them in to check. I live on the second floor with only one way to exit, so I shut the door and proceeded to my room to put on clothes, all of a sudden, they start pounding on my door and window, breaking the window, then proceeded to kick in the door. I had locked my bedroom door to dress. the stormed in, I heard two loud bangs, then, they kicked open my bedroom door where the had guns pointing at me and my aunt. they then cuffed us both, all the while man handling me and I have a fractured hip. they let my dogs run wild and telling me oh well. I told them the force they were using with me was unreasonable and they called me a liar about my hip. I told them to call my doctor who could verify me condition. anyways, arrested me for 148 pc. I thought that the purpose of probation is to rehabilitate not punish. people v turek states a search absent the probationer is void. and people v robles states that even though one tenant has a warrantless search condition, the other tenant still has a justifiably reasonable expectation of privacy free from warrantless searches. any advice would be greatly appreciated!
 


Ladyback1

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? ca
if, when, officers come to do a compliance sweep of a probationers house, and the probationer is not home, are the police allowed to kick in the doors? upon hearing someone banging on the door, my elder aunt (who doesn't live there) opened the door, the screen door was locked, the police then stated compliance sweep, then stated my roommates name. I went to the door, with a towel on my head and one on my body, because I had just gotten out of the shower. I told them my roommate was not home, but if they gave me a minute to get dressed, I would let them in to check. I live on the second floor with only one way to exit, so I shut the door and proceeded to my room to put on clothes, all of a sudden, they start pounding on my door and window, breaking the window, then proceeded to kick in the door. I had locked my bedroom door to dress. the stormed in, I heard two loud bangs, then, they kicked open my bedroom door where the had guns pointing at me and my aunt. they then cuffed us both, all the while man handling me and I have a fractured hip. they let my dogs run wild and telling me oh well. I told them the force they were using with me was unreasonable and they called me a liar about my hip. I told them to call my doctor who could verify me condition. anyways, arrested me for 148 pc. I thought that the purpose of probation is to rehabilitate not punish. people v turek states a search absent the probationer is void. and people v robles states that even though one tenant has a warrantless search condition, the other tenant still has a justifiably reasonable expectation of privacy free from warrantless searches. any advice would be greatly appreciated!
You chose to allow a probationer to live with you.

And how did they know you were telling the truth that he/she wasn't there? How did they know that there wasn't a way to get out of the apartment? (yeah, I've seen some very *ODD* ways to exit a building/apartment).

Instead of shutting the door on them, you should have just invited them in. The minute you shut the door on them (and did you lock it too?), and then locked your bedroom door, they took that as probable cause to enter.
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
Look at it from their perspective. The roommate of the probationer claims they are not home, then closes the door and goes into a bedroom and shuts the door. They didn't know he wasn't home.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
. and people v robles states that even though one tenant has a warrantless search condition, the other tenant still has a justifiably reasonable expectation of privacy free from warrantless searches.
that has nothing to do with your situation. In Robles, the police used the fact Robles brother (they lived together) being on probation was subject to warrantless searches. Using this argument they searched the garage Robles had stashed a stolen car in and upon finding the car, arrested and charged Robles with the theft of the car.



. people v turek
to start, that is an Idaho case that did not reach the federal level. and again, it is dealing with the suppression of evidence discovered during a search. Unless there is more to the story, it would not apply as a supporting case due to the results of the search being incriminating evidence. It also involved very specific wording of the rights the probationer has relinquished. Unless that fits your case exactly, again, it does not even provide supporting law.

In references to supporting or contesting law in other states, they even presented this:


The Illinois Supreme Court has taken an even stricter stance on the interpretation of
search conditions--holding that a condition which stated that the probationer “shall submit” to
searches at any time, and which did not include the phrase “at the request of,” still required
officers to obtain consent from the probationer as the term did not constitute prospective consent
which waived the probationer’s fourth amendment rights.
 

davew128

Senior Member
And how did they know you were telling the truth that he/she wasn't there?
Not the OP's concern. This is the OP's home.

How did they know that there wasn't a way to get out of the apartment? (yeah, I've seen some very *ODD* ways to exit a building/apartment).
The outside is usually secured by even more officers. There have been televised warrant and probation compliance checks around here lately.

Instead of shutting the door on them, you should have just invited them in. The minute you shut the door on them (and did you lock it too?), and then locked your bedroom door, they took that as probable cause to enter.
I can't believe you actually said that. Locking a door to your own room from the inside is now PROBABLE CAUSE TO ENTER? In which fascist or muslim nation?
 

Ladyback1

Senior Member
Not the OP's concern. This is the OP's home.

The outside is usually secured by even more officers. There have been televised warrant and probation compliance checks around here lately.

I can't believe you actually said that. Locking a door to your own room from the inside is now PROBABLE CAUSE TO ENTER? In which fascist or muslim nation?
reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it hon?

The minute that she shut the front door was their probable cause---the minute she didn't open her locked door, was probable cause to break it down.

Furthermore: If you (the general you) decide to co-habitat with someone on probation or parole, you should know that you will be considered part of the problem if the P&P compliance check knocks on the door and you are evasive. And yes, saying he's not here and shutting the door is evasive.
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
Didn't know he WAS either.

Personally, there should be a formal complaint for arresting someone for 148PC IN THEIR OWN HOME. Last time I checked, one had to be IN PUBLIC to be arrested for disorderly.
Um, Dave:

Penal Code Section 148 Resisting Delaying or Obstructing Officer

makes more sense. Still not sure it is a valid charge but at least it makes more sense.
 

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
My understanding is generally, as a part of the terms of probation, a probationer waives the right to a search of their home at any time without a warrant. In essence, the police are given the right to enter as they did at any time.
 

Ladyback1

Senior Member
I thought that the purpose of probation is to rehabilitate not punish.
the stated purpose of probation varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But, the overall theme in most, if not all, jurisdictions, is that probation is SUPERVISION.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
My understanding is generally, as a part of the terms of probation, a probationer waives the right to a search of their home at any time without a warrant. In essence, the police are given the right to enter as they did at any time.
In some cases in California, their must be a request to search. The probationer is required to submit but that would mean if the probationer is not present, they could not submit because there can be no request of an absent person so there can be no search without the probationer present. It is not a generic one size fits all situation.

I
 
Last edited:

davew128

Senior Member
reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it hon?
Only two people on this Earth have earned the right to call me hon. You're neither. But since you brought up reading comprehension difficulties, you might want to look at your own failings, since you got the posted facts wrong. :rolleyes:

The minute that she shut the front door was their probable cause---the minute she didn't open her locked door, was probable cause to break it down.
BS.

Furthermore: If you (the general you) decide to co-habitat with someone on probation or parole, you should know that you will be considered part of the problem if the P&P compliance check knocks on the door and you are evasive. And yes, saying he's not here and shutting the door is evasive.
Remind me again whether the 4th Amendment is still valid even in California and then you can apologize for your BS reading comprehension crap. If P&P comes to my door looking for someone who's not there, and I truthfully tell them the person is not there, they can kiss my you know what if they don't like it.

More to the point, after researching the issue, even if there's a 4th waiver, it DOESN'T EXTEND TO NON-COMMON AREAS. That means they can search areas of the home the probationer has access to such as their bedroom and shared rooms. It does NOT extend to someone ELSE'S room if there is no reason to think the person is in there and if you think that locking a bedroom door while changing is probable cause, I have a particular bridge over the East River to sell you.
 
Last edited:

davew128

Senior Member
Um, Dave:

Penal Code Section 148 Resisting Delaying or Obstructing Officer

makes more sense. Still not sure it is a valid charge but at least it makes more sense.
I was thinking it was disorderly for some reason. I can all but guarantee that whichever office gets the charge won't be filing it. It would be a PR DISASTER if the press found out someone was arrested for not opening their door to the police looking for someone not there.
 

davew128

Senior Member
My understanding is generally, as a part of the terms of probation, a probationer waives the right to a search of their home at any time without a warrant. In essence, the police are given the right to enter as they did at any time.
There is in some instances a 4th Amendment waiver in CA probation. I don't know the circumstances where it applies but it exists. That said, it still doesn't apply to everyone else who might share the domicile.
 

OHRoadwarrior

Senior Member
Based on the link I provided below, it appears the search is legal. I say this based on the clear articulation the search was " conducted for the purpose of supervising and rehabilitating the probationer" and the probable cause inferred from the overt refusal of entry whereby the door was locked and the other shut.

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/probation_searches.pdf
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top