Forcable Entry?

[Just Blue]

Px Hx...

Seems like OP likes to make a mountain outta of a molehill.

 

[ajfarms1]

It is also important to note that the police CAN order you from the car without telling you why. And, in most instances, you MUST comply or risk arrest!

The officer gets to control the contact, not the suspect.

If someone pulls off the road onto private property or a residence AFTER I activated my lights, then locks the doors - my weapon will come out and I WILL be calling for a few friends. The hink factor would immediately go to Factor 10! I would then call to the driver to exit the vehicle with his license, registration and insurance in hand - and nothing else. If he refused, I would stand at a position of cover with my weapon aimed in his direction and watching the residence (if any) and the area around me for a possible ambush.

Once cover arrived, I would make contact, once again demand compliance and that he step from the vehicle. If the refusals continued, he would be informed that continued refusal will result in his arrest. If compliance is still refused, we'd make a plan to distract and force entry to the vehicle to affect the arrest. Then, we'd impound the car ... if he was in his own driveway, we might leave it unless he wanted us to tow it since it would be minus at least one window and therefore at risk of being ripped off.

This would be a classic way of turning a simple traffic offense into a HUGE problem for the suspect. Why some people might choose to create a mountain from that molehill, I cannot comprehend.

Please don't call your daddy, I don't want a spanking!!! Whatever happened to "serve and protect" nowadays its "serve and collect" My initial question was hypothetical because I said IF! The overreaction that happened here is the same thing that happens to people who pose no real threat.

 

[CdwJava]

Please don't call your daddy, I don't want a spanking!!!

My father passed away ... so, no fear of him spanking you.

Whatever happened to "serve and protect" nowadays its "serve and collect"

Ah, I see ... so, by YOUR skewed definition of the law, if you close your eyes, plug your ears, and mutter over and over, "I can't-hear-you, I can't-hear-you ..." then you are absolved of legal responsibility for your actions? Really??!!

My initial question was hypothetical because I said IF! The overreaction that happened here is the same thing that happens to people who pose no real threat.

Ah, if we had a nickel for every person that poses a hypothetical that wasn't.

The result is the same - real or hypo. The LEGAL response would be, YES, in the scenario you outlined the police CAN force you out of the vehicle and arrest you if you fail to comply.

Oh, and the ONLY person who knows that a subject poses "no real threat" is the subject themself. The officer has no way of knowing this and must take actions based upon the law, his training, and with regards to his safety and that of the general public. So far the police are not mindreaders nor prognosticators, so they can only act in response to the actions they observe.

 

[ajfarms1]

My sincerest apologies for the daddy comment. I did not know As far as serve and collect, that is very true. A friend of mine, police chief for a small town, was confronted by the city manager that budget cuts for the pd were necessary, he replied "ok I will eliminate the overtime shift set up to help officers in need of money, but ticket revenues generated by that shift (40-50k monthly) would also be lost" That was the end of budget cut demands by the city mgr. so YES serve and collect is a undesirable reality of modern cops.

 

[CdwJava]

My sincerest apologies for the daddy comment. I did not know

No harm, and no prob. I wouldn't have expected you to. Just one reason why parent and sibling comments can be big "oops ..." in such settings.

As far as serve and collect, that is very true. A friend of mine, police chief for a small town, was confronted by the city manager that budget cuts for the pd were necessary, he replied "ok I will eliminate the overtime shift set up to help officers in need of money, but ticket revenues generated by that shift (40-50k monthly) would also be lost"

While this may be true in SOME states and jurisdictions, this is absolutely not true in my state as we tend to often get less than half a sawbuck from every citation and that's if the officer doesn't have to go to court. It'll take 20-25 or more cites to pay for that court date. So, traffic is NOT a money-maker everywhere.

Plus, in the scenario you proposed, this was not the case at all. It was a person either deluding themself into thinking they could avoid contact and a citation, or, evasion and resisting/obstructing an officer. The hypo you proposed was a crime, not a revenue generating frame job.

 

[tranquility]

So locking myself in a car is an open admission to all crimes? Is this where race, age, type of car I am driving all become stereotyping factors? Would it help to know I am a middle aged father driving a nice truck with clear windows? NO plain sight of crime or evidence of a crime was visible.

If the officer had a reasonable suspicion you committed a crime and locking yourself hindered his investigation, that is a crime all in itself.

As to the fleeing into a safe place (like a residence-not a locked vehicle), it would depend on if the probable cause was for a crime that is potentially a jailable offense. Even then, the cases are a little confusing and the actual facts would be needed.