Police lied to gain entry to my house.

[shanerico24]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

This past Saturday, I was made aware that the police went to my house and told my girlfriend that someone said that I was involved in a car accident and they wanted to make sure that I was ok. Previously, they harassed me for my father's parking tickets every three to four months (we share the same name). She gave them my cell phone number, yet, they never called. I called them, and told them what I was told. The woman I spoke to took down my information, and said that she would have someone call me, and still, they did not call. I sent them a facebook message on Saturday at 8:47 PM EST telling them that I was made aware of their inquiry. I also told them that if they were there for any other reason than an alleged car accident, and they used that lie to gain entry to my house, I would hire a lawyer take care of the situation. I also gave them my phone number and asked them to call me with-in 24 hours of recieving the message. They responded this morning at 10:03 AM EST and told me that there was an outstanding felony warrant for my arrest, and I needed to have my lawyer call them to discuss it. I responded by telling them how sad it was for them to make up a shady story to gain entry to someone's house. Their department is very well known for being corrupt, picking locks and going into someone's home with out a warrant of any kind, physically and verbally harassing (hitting them, drawing their gun on clearly unarmed people, name calling, taunting, etc.) civilians and doing things like this all the time. My question is this: Can a police officer make up a story to gain entry to someone's house when they have an arrest warrant? If they were really trying to get ahold of me, what are the likely reasons they did not call me since both me and my girlfriend gave them my phone number? Why would they want a lawyer to call them instead of discussing the warrant with me? Thanks.

 

[swalsh411]

Yes the police can lie. Your girlfriend should have closed the door in their face. If they had a warrant, they would not be asking to come inside.

 

[dave33]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

This past Saturday, I was made aware that the police went to my house and told my girlfriend that someone said that I was involved in a car accident and they wanted to make sure that I was ok. Previously, they harassed me for my father's parking tickets every three to four months (we share the same name). She gave them my cell phone number, yet, they never called. I called them, and told them what I was told. The woman I spoke to took down my information, and said that she would have someone call me, and still, they did not call. I sent them a facebook message on Saturday at 8:47 PM EST telling them that I was made aware of their inquiry. I also told them that if they were there for any other reason than an alleged car accident, and they used that lie to gain entry to my house, I would hire a lawyer take care of the situation. I also gave them my phone number and asked them to call me with-in 24 hours of recieving the message. They responded this morning at 10:03 AM EST and told me that there was an outstanding felony warrant for my arrest, and I needed to have my lawyer call them to discuss it. I responded by telling them how sad it was for them to make up a shady story to gain entry to someone's house. Their department is very well known for being corrupt, picking locks and going into someone's home with out a warrant of any kind, physically and verbally harassing (hitting them, drawing their gun on clearly unarmed people, name calling, taunting, etc.) civilians and doing things like this all the time. My question is this: Can a police officer make up a story to gain entry to someone's house when they have an arrest warrant? If they were really trying to get ahold of me, what are the likely reasons they did not call me since both me and my girlfriend gave them my phone number? Why would they want a lawyer to call them instead of discussing the warrant with me? Thanks.

It does seem a little odd. Do you have an idea what the felony warrant (if it exists) is for?

 

[shanerico24]

It does seem a little odd. Do you have an idea what the felony warrant (if it exists) is for?

I have no idea. They refuse to talk to me, even though the warrant is supposed to be for me.

 

[shanerico24]

Yes the police can lie. Your girlfriend should have closed the door in their face. If they had a warrant, they would not be asking to come inside.

How is it legal for them to just flat out lie like that? I thought that the cops were supposed to be "professional". Lying is not professional by any means. Also, they only searched the second floor (which is 4 rooms). They did not search the basement, the attic or anywhere else.

 

[dave33]

I have no idea. They refuse to talk to me, even though the warrant is supposed to be for me.

If you have a warrant than they will arrest you, not request to speak to your lawyer.

 

[xylene]

This "my dad has the same name" business is wearing extremely thin.

It would be super easy to move out of Jamestown NY, btw.

 

[Shannongiles16]

Sounds like they are fishing for something else.

If I was being harrassed by the local pd I would make a report to the highway patrol or the like. Police lie. If you make a false statement however you can be charged. Double standards irritate me.

 

[tranquility]

How is it legal for them to just flat out lie like that? I thought that the cops were supposed to be "professional". Lying is not professional by any means. Also, they only searched the second floor (which is 4 rooms). They did not search the basement, the attic or anywhere else.

Have you heard of undercover cops?

But, lying or using a ruse to get a person to open the door will generally not lead to admissible plain sight evidence. Also, consent may be militated by the coercion or duress of a false representation by the police.

 

[swalsh411]

It's not illegal because there is no law that says they can't do it. "Officer friendly" that you met in second grade isn't on duty when real police are dealing with real criminals. (or people they believe to be criminals)

 

[CdwJava]

Yes the police can lie. Your girlfriend should have closed the door in their face. If they had a warrant, they would not be asking to come inside.

The police cannot gain consent to search through trickery. Had they lied in order to gain entry via consent, it is likely that any evidence could be suppressed.

 

[CdwJava]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

This past Saturday, I was made aware that the police went to my house and told my girlfriend that someone said that I was involved in a car accident and they wanted to make sure that I was ok.

Okay. But, if you weren't home, what was the point? Did they come inside? Did she tell them you weren't home?

They responded this morning at 10:03 AM EST and told me that there was an outstanding felony warrant for my arrest, and I needed to have my lawyer call them to discuss it. I responded by telling them how sad it was for them to make up a shady story to gain entry to someone's house.

Well, they could have simply kickled in the door. Perhaps they will try THAT one next time.

Their department is very well known for being corrupt, picking locks and going into someone's home with out a warrant of any kind, physically and verbally harassing (hitting them, drawing their gun on clearly unarmed people, name calling, taunting, etc.) civilians and doing things like this all the time.

That "well known" reputation and $1.79 will get you a cup of coffee. Point being that the specific facts in YOUR situation is not any of those things, and "reputation" stories can come from even entirely un-credible sources.

My question is this: Can a police officer make up a story to gain entry to someone's house when they have an arrest warrant?

Yes. They can enter on a ruse if they otherwise have the judicial authority to do so. However, if this was NOT your home, and your state does not permit entry to a residence not belonging to the suspect of an arrest warrant, then the ruse would likely fall flat if it was used to obtain consent. But, if this was your home, then the ruse should be lawful.

Using a ruse to gain consent to enter with regards to a search can be unlawful. Using it to gain entry when they otherwise have the judicial authority to make entry is generally lawful.

 

[swalsh411]

The police cannot gain consent to search through trickery. Had they lied in order to gain entry via consent, it is likely that any evidence could be suppressed.

Do you have any case law to support this? I understand there is a distinction between coercion ("let us search your house or we are going to have your husband deported") and trickery ("let us search your house for A when we are really looking for B").

For example: Investigating a domestic violence complaint, police ask to search Bob's house for guns (he is a felon and they know it). Bob agrees to let them look for guns. The police find drugs inside a closet they opened. Are you saying they cannot use that evidence against Bob?

 

[CdwJava]

Do you have any case law to support this? I understand there is a distinction between coercion ("let us search your house or we are going to have your husband deported") and trickery ("let us search your house for A when we are really looking for B").

For example: Investigating a domestic violence complaint, police ask to search Bob's house for guns (he is a felon and they know it). Bob agrees to let them look for guns. The police find drugs inside a closet they opened. Are you saying they cannot use that evidence against Bob?

Yes, I have a ton of 9th Circuit and CA state case law but none from the USSC that I have immediate access to. Though as such discussions are a staple of 4th Amendment learning in police manuals that are not state specific, I can only imagine there is also ample federal level case law to support the contention that a ruse cannot be used to gain consent. Using a trick to gain entry for a SEARCH such as, "We want to see if he is okay because he had been in an accident," would not be valid unless he HAD been in an accident or they had reason to believe he had been. However, as it seems they were not using the ruse to search, but to speak with him so they could arrest him, it does not appear this is an issue at all. It sounds as if they attempted to get him to come to the door or for the girlfriend to admit that he was home so that they could make the arrest. Using a ruse to do something they already have the judicial authority to do is not a problem. They could have simply forced their way inside his residence, anyway.

In the case of your scenario, the police asked if they could search for guns. This is not a ruse as they asked for consent to search for a specific thing. Permission was granted. Their subjective intent is not generally going to be an issue so long as the objective purpose was valid. So long as they searched in places where a gun could reasonable be hidden (i.e. not a matchbox) there should be no issue.

 

[tranquility]

Do you have any case law to support this? I understand there is a distinction between coercion ("let us search your house or we are going to have your husband deported") and trickery ("let us search your house for A when we are really looking for B").

For example: Investigating a domestic violence complaint, police ask to search Bob's house for guns (he is a felon and they know it). Bob agrees to let them look for guns. The police find drugs inside a closet they opened. Are you saying they cannot use that evidence against Bob?

Not going to do a search in the OP's circuit or state, but the basic theory is at:
People v. Reeves (1964) 61 Cal.2nd 268 in part:

[1] Inasmuch as the search and seizure and arrests were accomplished without search or arrest warrants the question is whether the officers had reasonable and probable cause to enter the room. The prosecution theory was that the officers had such reasonable and probable cause because ****** saw [61 Cal.2d 273] what appeared to be a marijuana "roach" when the door was opened. The theory of the defense was that nothing seen when the door was opened could constitute reasonable and probable cause, because the door was opened as a result of the ruse and subterfuge employed by the police, it being contended that evidence so obtained is illegally secured. The trial court, in passing on the lawfulness of the search and arrests, considered only that point. After expressing serious doubts on the question, the trial court ruled that the evidence secured as a result of the false message and ruse of the police had not been illegally secured.

This ruling was clearly erroneous. Unless the officers had reasonable cause to enter Reeves' room before the door was opened they cannot lawfully rely on any information secured by inducing the opening of that door by ruse or subterfuge. [2] It is well settled by both federal and state decisions that "an entry obtained by trickery, stealth or subterfuge renders a search and seizure invalid" (People v. Roberts, 47 Cal.2d 374, 378 [303 P.2d 721]; to the same effect see People v. Albert, 182 Cal.App.2d 729, 737 [6 Cal.Rptr. 473]; Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 305 [41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647, 651]; Fraternal Order of Eagles, No. 778 v. United States, 57 F.2d 93).

With the Supremes theory in Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298:

The prohibition of the Fourth Amendment is against all unreasonable searches and seizures, and if for a government officer to obtain entrance to a man's house or office by force or by an illegal threat or show of force, amounting to coercion, and then to search for and seize his private papers would be an unreasonable, and therefore a prohibited search and seizure, as it certainly would be, it is impossible to successfully contend that a like search and seizure would be a reasonable one if only admission were obtained by stealth, instead of by force or coercion. The security and privacy of the home or office and of the papers of the owner would be as much invaded and the search andseizure would be as much against his will in the one case as in the other, and it must therefore be regarded as equally in violation of his constitutional rights.

Without discussing them, we cannot doubt that such decisions as there are in conflict with this conclusion are unsound, and that, whether entrance to the home or office of a person suspected of crime be obtained by a representative of any branch or subdivision of the government of the United States by stealth, or through social acquaintance, or in the guise of a business call, and whether the owner be present or not when he enters, any search and seizure subsequently and secretly made in his absence, falls within the scope of the prohibition of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the answer to the first question must be in the affirmative.