Is this a legal search & seizure?

[Hedonist]

What is the name of your state?The following events occurred in Maryland.

My former roommate accidently left his back door wide open when he and a friend went out for a drink. His back door faces a small yard surrounded by houses on all sides, with a narrow alley providing street access. When he arrived home, he realized his stupid mistake and closed and locked his door.

Several days later, two officers knocked on his door and wanted to come inside and ask some questions. They claimed they were responding to a 'domestic' call. Since he lives alone and no one else had been with him recently, he was puzzled by this. The officers glanced around, took down all of his information and began to leave. On their way out, one nonchalantly asked R if he had heard of any break-ins in the area. R replied that he hadn't, and the officers left.

The following day, R received a telephone call from one of the officers, who asked him to come to the station for some questions regarding an investigation. R responded to the call and met the officer. He was read his Miranda rights and the officer asked if he had any idea why he was called in. R honestly didn't, and told him so. The officer told the following story.

He and his partner were following a man down an alley and lost him when the alley ended in a yard. They noticed an opened door, and proceeded to investigate, ostensibly making sure that the residence hadn't been broken into. Upon entering, they found no signs of foul play, but did find a small bag of marijuana and a piece of paraphenalia in plain view on a table. They took these with them and left.

The officer then grilled R on illegal activity in the area. R did not possess any pertinent information and told him so. The officer wanted to know where the marijuana came from. R replied that he had no idea what the officer was talking about. The officer kept pressing for that info, saying that R could be arrested, but he'd see what he could do if R could help him out. The officer claimed he wanted the bigger fish and that he was not worried about the small amount that had been found in R's apartment. R replied that he was on probation for a DUI and was doing whatever necessary to keep himself out of trouble. He told the officer that if he could provide any help, he would, but that he did not have any information for the officer. The officer said the items found would be fingerprinted, and if R's prints were present, then he would have proof of possession. The officer claimed he had 1 year and 1 day to make the arrest, if he was so inclined. R repeated himself about not being able to help and left after the questioning.

Some additional facts that may have bearing:
-R is on unsupervised probation for a DUI. He received probation before judgement in that case.
-The table in question is in no way visible from the back doorway. Anyone outside would not be able to see anything on the table.
-If the police did enter R's apartment, they left the back door open and unlocked, just as they found it.
-The officer claimed he and his partner had the express right to enter the building because the door was open. He compared it to entering a place of business with an open door.

Some questions I have:
1) If this made it to court, would this be considered a legal search & seizure?

2) If this search was illegal, does R currently have any recourse, or must he wait until charges are filed?

3) What is the likelihood of the police actually dusting the items for fingerprints? I've been led to believe that minimum time and resources are expended for such a minor find.

4) If fingerprints are identified, is it possible that a warrant could be issued? If fingerprints other than R's are identified and matches found, could warrants be issued for other people and/or their residences?

5) Are the police permitted to lie about the circumstances in which they allegedly found these items? They obviously lied about the 'domestic' call they claimed they were responding to. I'm sure they are allowed to do that, but I am doubtful of the veracity of the situation as a whole. How exactly did they lose somebody that went down a short alley into a small yard?

6) Do any of you frequent other boards similar to this one that I could post this on? I am trying to gather the most possible information in a short amount of time and any links provided would be most helpful.

I appreciate any informed responses and thank you for taking the time to read this. If I missed any important information, please say so and I shall provide what I can.

[seniorjudge]

Your statement of facts is unclear.

If you are asking if there was a search when the guy let the cops in, the answer is no since he let them in voluntarily.


"He and his partner were following a man down an alley and lost him when the alley ended in a yard. They noticed an opened door, and proceeded to investigate, ostensibly making sure that the residence hadn't been broken into. Upon entering, they found no signs of foul play, but did find a small bag of marijuana and a piece of paraphenalia in plain view on a table. They took these with them and left."

If you are asking about this, then there is nothing illegal because there was no search. The cops were looking for a suspect and walked in a house with a door open.

[BelizeBreeze]

1) If this made it to court, would this be considered a legal search & seizure?

yes.

2) If this search was illegal, does R currently have any recourse, or must he wait until charges are filed?

See above.

3) What is the likelihood of the police actually dusting the items for fingerprints? I've been led to believe that minimum time and resources are expended for such a minor find.

ask the cops and they will fingerprint for you.

4) If fingerprints are identified, is it possible that a warrant could be issued? If fingerprints other than R's are identified and matches found, could warrants be issued for other people and/or their residences?

yes and yes

5) Are the police permitted to lie about the circumstances in which they allegedly found these items?

Yes. You said they (allegedly) lied in verbal statements to R. That is totally acceptable. They may not, however, lie on official statements they must sign under oath . It's called perjury.

5 con't) They obviously lied about the 'domestic' call they claimed they were responding to. I'm sure they are allowed to do that, but I am doubtful of the veracity of the situation as a whole. How exactly did they lose somebody that went down a short alley into a small yard?

irrelevant. see above.

6) Do any of you frequent other boards similar to this one that I could post this on? I am trying to gather the most possible information in a short amount of time and any links provided would be most helpful.

go to [url]www.friendswholeavedopewithfriendsandletfriendtaketherap.com[/url]

[Hedonist]

Originally Posted by seniorjudge

Your statement of facts is unclear.

If you are asking if there was a search when the guy let the cops in, the answer is no since he let them in voluntarily.


"He and his partner were following a man down an alley and lost him when the alley ended in a yard. They noticed an opened door, and proceeded to investigate, ostensibly making sure that the residence hadn't been broken into. Upon entering, they found no signs of foul play, but did find a small bag of marijuana and a piece of paraphenalia in plain view on a table. They took these with them and left."

If you are asking about this, then there is nothing illegal because there was no search. The cops were looking for a suspect and walked in a house with a door open.

Yes, I am asking about the police entering the place without a warrant and when no one was home. That and the following alleged seizure of the items which did not pertain to their 'investigation' is what I am questioning. This is what I've found regarding warrantless search & seizure:

There are essentially six scenarios that justify warrantless entry into a residence:

• Rescue:
Rescue of someone in imminent threat of death or serious injury.
• Property damage:
There must be an imminent threat of substantial property damage.
• Public danger:
Includes dangerous hazards or instrumentalities.
• Destruction of evidence:
Prior to entry, officers must have probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime is on the premises and the officers are aware of specific facts which reasonably indicate the someone on the premises would destroy or remove the evidence prior to warrant issuance.
• Hot Pursuit:
Continuing pursuit of a dangerous suspect in a serious offence.
• Prevent escape:
An individual fleeing from lawful police custody may be apprehended.

Rescue, public danger and destruction of evidence can be eliminated off the bat. The property damage scenario would be bunk, since the police left the door open and unlocked upon leaving. I don't believe hot pursuit or escape prevention can be used here either, as the officer never once referred to the man he was following as a suspect and he never claimed they were following him pursuant to a crime or to arrest him. As per R, the officer made it seem as if they were simply following the man out of curiousity.