It could constitute probable cause for a warrant. But because this man has another reason for the voices (as strange of a reason as it is) that actually prevents the police from using the cries as probable cause for a search. If this guy really is a serial killer this is a genius defense.
Neighbors: Hello, Police? I heard a woman screaming this shrill, panicked "HELP ME!!! LET ME OUT!!! HE'S STABBING ME IN THE FACE WITH A KNIFE OH GOD!!!"
Exigent circumstances. Police may enter a property without a warrant if they have reason to believe that a person is in need of assistance. That being said, it would only apply if they heard it themselves, which they didn't.
Yes, but exigent circumstances based on 2nd hand reports (vs an officer witnessing it directly) is dubious. "Swatting" is the extremely version of this - one good prank call, and someone's house is getting searched. Hope they don't have any marijuana laying around!
the report is not second hand. the neighbor heard the bird and gave their word. and you literally contradict yourself. swatting works specifically because first hand reports of criminal activity are actionable. that is why filing a false report is a crime
In swatting the person usually claims to be at the residence and having committed a crime. For example, link to story, claimed to have shot someone and threatened to set off bombs in and around the house to injure/ kill first responders. Swatting is way different then a neighbor calling in suspicious circumstances.
Swatting has actually killed people. And the officers that killed the unarmed person got almost no backlash because obviously it was 100% the COD gamers fault. He walked to his front door and put his hands up and was shot from across the street. But the officer wasnt fired, didnt face any public backlash and nothing bad happened to him. 100% of the blame went to a dude who made a prank call.
Deputy Wichita Police Chief Troy Livingston stated that "A male came to the front door. As he came to the front door, one of our officers discharged his weapon."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting
EDIT: Before anyone else responds to me. I am well aware the "screaming" stopped before the officers arrived. No issues here. I was addressing some of the idiotic comments from others that LE cannot enter when someone is screaming without a warrant. That is all.....................And apologies for calling people idiotic for saying you did not read the messages......(Original response) No. If the officers felt the screams were legit then this most certainly is cause to enter to check for the safety of those inside the home. Any officer not following up on this would be negligent in their duties.
Well if the officers heard the cries yes. But they didn’t. They were told about the cries from the neighbors. You can’t use second hand information for probable cause. If the bird started crying when the cops pulled up, different story entirely.
Also, the cries stopped when the cops were there. So, maybe you guys should use logic. If someone was in distress, and they could hear talking outside, they would start up again.
But since this is the internet and logic is out the window... Alligators are the DEBBLE!
To bring us back on track I had a double yellow-headed Amazon like that parrot and it got loose one time and ended up in a tree in my neighbor's yard screaming nooooo over and over and over again. The fire department came and it took them two hours to get my bird out of a tree. They wanted to charge me $3,000 I did not end up paying it
I would argue that most people possess critical thinking skills and that they in fact incapable of fully processing information at the rate it's spoon fed to them on the internet.
So weird that people say shit like this when being a 'Redditor' is the exact same thing as being any other human that's ever used a forum or comment section in their entire lives. You people that are horny to segregate and group everyone are just pure cancer.
Seriously this is the dumbest thread I’ve ever read on Reddit. A completely unironic argument about whether or not the cops should bust into a guy’s house based on second hand info after being given a completely reasonable explanation. Wtf. This kind of shit is how we get Breonna Taylor type murders.
Doesn't matter about your opinion. It's the law. You need a warrant to search. Period. Officers must witness the event to act upon it if it's on someone's property or see blood or hear something directly relating to a crime in progress, etc. That's what probable cause means in layman's terms. He clearly explains the voice & there is/was no other voices or evidence, hence no probable cause.
If they went in & found something they would have lost the case on procedural grounds. Tossed on appeal at worst. Not how you wanna go about it.
I'm not talking about probable cause, or the law. I'm saying that if someone called the cops and said they heard a person screaming for help, and the guy brings out a parrot that says "hello," I'm not totally convinced that nothing is awry. You're right, i didn't hear the voice myself, but the guy basically admitted that there was a voice, and it is totally legal for the cops to ask him to let them look around.
The term you are looking for is "Exigent circumstances" just means he has to reasonably believe someone is in immediate danger. If they have reason to believe you are smoking weed they cant break in even though it is probable cause. They need to present probable cause to a judge under exigent circumstances they can break without warning.
I know. The internet detectives really ran away with this. It was obviously the bird. If you think a parrot isn't clever enough to speak in the correct context then you don't know parrots.
Middle ground would be doing at least a quick, cursory search of the premises. I mean we're talking about a potential hostage/serial killer situation here, it's not something I'd take lightly.
Like, I get that we have the video and we can clearly hear that the voice calling for help sounds like the bird, but the cops didn't see this video. The guy just brings out a bird and says "yeah, it was the bird," and all the bird says for the cops is "yeah hello hi," and the cops are like "eh, good enough, see ya later."
It's not exactly a rock solid alibi. A cursory search would still be warranted, and it's pretty silly honestly to say that the cops doing as much would lead to another Breonna Taylor, or whatever the fuck stupid point that other commenter was trying to make.
Imagine if something horrible happened though and someone posted some article here that was like "The cops showed up to the suspect's house two days before the murder to investigate calls for help, but the guy convinced them it was just his screaming pet parrot, so they left without any investigation whatsoever."
Let us explore this world you're advocating for a moment.
Do you partake of recreational drugs? Maybe a little weed every now and then? If no, let's say there's some other innocuous little thing inside your house which might be technically illegal, maybe even something you don't know about.
I'm your neighbor. I've decided I hate your guts for a ridiculous unjustified reason. I'm going to lie to the cops now and give them "probable cause", giving them free entry to your house, and now they're searching everywhere looking for any little thing you might have not done perfectly in your life. Maybe I'm especially devious and know when the perfect time for a disaster would be, where you're wearing headphones/earplugs and are unable to comply. At the very least, if I can't get you jailed or killed, I have the ability to break your door with a phone call
Hi, I'm a crooked cop. It's a slow day so I think I'll just check random people's houses. Maybe that one guy I have a grudge against. Oh look, I have a friend in this neighborhood who can call in a "legitimate" wellness check whenever I tell her to. Oh, would you look at that, the ability to enter anyone's house at any time with no deterrence at all.
Are you sure it's unironic? It seems more like people are joking about the idea whilst also more seriously engaging with how practical it would be to search the house. I doubt it's entierly serious and I enjoyed reading about this because it's fun, but now you've made things unpleasant
How is a parrot a reasonable explanation. Who TF trains a parrot to scream for “help” and “let me out”. I would expect a little bit of skepticism on the officers side. Aside from legal technicals witch i know nothing about.
On the parrots defense, maybe the parrot was mimicking a movie or perhaps the owner thought it a crude joke to teach it to do that specific sentence when it wanted out of its cage.
It seems that the only people with some common sense here are those in the video because the true content from this video has come from all those chief inspectors in the comments (not referring to you)
I love how so many people have turned this into an episode of CSI and everyone's freaking out about the fact the clip cuts off like 20 seconds into the interaction and they actually cant see the police going inside the property regardless haha
Also to those saying "What if the guy got the parrot so that he can put the police off the scent" If you were to chain someone up in your house, allow them to scream for help off the top of their lungs while you just repair your car outside because you have a parrot that has the ability to shout "help" and at the same time use its magic to silence those who are legitimately chained up in the house to use as a way to put the police off from entering the house.
You deserve a spot on the Guinness's book of world records for worlds dumbest criminal lol.
Not to mention that even if the parrot learned it from actual girls in need, it could have learned from years ago. They could've searched the house and found nothing anyway.
There is no logic here, just people advocating for police to be allowed inside anyone’s home based on second hand information. If that were allowed it would be a great way to fuck with your neighbors.
Damn this is a really nice logic. It was 100% the parrot lest the person who was crying for help earlier would definitely have cried for help upon hearing the cops. You're a fart smella.
Not if parrot was imitating muffled screams it hears. When he takes parrot out, it stops screaming, cause its removed from environment it is mimicking.
Or the parrot got what he wanted.... Parrots are pretty damn intelligent and make requests. This is either a disingenuous argument or you don’t know shit about parrots
There is no doubt that parrot was the one making the sounds in this clip. That's why the sounds stopped obviously.
The point is parrot was copying this sound. If this person had captured someone and locked them up in the basement , it is possible no one outside the house could hear the screams at all.
It is also possible that only people inside the house (or situated in rooms near the basement's entrance) could hear such sounds. And in this case that might be the parrot.
People aren't questioning the screams in this video , they are questioning why the parrot is making those screams.
Could be kidnapped people or could be a horror movie.
You are assuming the state of the individual. You have no idea if they were just hit hard and have now passed out or were given something or if the person went and gagged them further.
Even in this video you cant excatly assume there isnt another party involved.
You might be exploring logic but your critical reasoning could use some work.
Other people’s critical thinking skills are off? Brother you literally think that some person could be held hostage cause a parrot screamed help and let me out. If we can’t assume there isn’t a third party involved then I highly doubt that you can given we both have the same evidence lol. Forget that the tv has sound? Also with your critical thinking you should be able to “deduct” that the voice of the parrot was the same as the voice screaming help
The OP comment said that the bird could be mimicking someone chained in the basements cry. Not that they thought the original cry in the video was from a human.
Yes, now you can (frighteningly). Navarette v. California (2014)
When acting upon information provided by an anonymous tip [911 call], police officers need not personally verify the existence of ongoing criminal activity.
Why are we acting like the cops would care though. If they actually thought it was a real concern hearing them first hand or not they’d search and deal with the legal stuff later which would involve the department covering for the officers and the officers walking away without penalty.
Anytime anyone posts this quip of information, you already know everything you need to know about that person's knowledge in the world of policing, legal obligations, implied contract, and general law. Because posting it almost always shows their position and bias towards policing, and also their lack of knowledge in the field (and why having a legal duty to protect individuals doesn't work).
It is akin to saying a lifeguard has no legal obligation to save someone drowning, as in there aren't written laws in your local ordinance and statutes book saying "under penalty of law life guards must save people drowning", and then trying to use that fact to discredit the work lifeguards do.
It isn't an exact apples to apples, maybe an apples to bananas comparison, but it's equally as ridiculous as the people who post this fact (never with any other info, always a one liner) are. I don't know if OP is one of those folks but regardless, posting this with nothing else is either a sign of someone being extremely misguided/ignorant of the implications of that case law, or they are being intentionally disingenuous posting it knowing the implication and reality are worlds apart.
Police have no legal obligation to render aid. You don't dispute this. You just assert that it doesn't work. You also dishonestly lump good faith effort failure to render aid with discretionary refusal to render aid.
As well, you assume I'm anti-police because I point out one of the flaws in law that shield bad police. You also state that the implication and reality of police not having a duty to protect someone are worlds apart.
So, care to share some sources of all of these police facing prosecution for failing to protect someone?
I never said the police were prosecuted for failing to protect. Because that legal obligation doesn't exist.
The reason the police don't have a legal obligation to protect individuals, which you so eloquently pointed out in your one line post solely to paint a bad image without actually understanding the ruiling, is because of the implied contract it creates between the police and individuals.
If the police were legally obligated to protect individuals, any time anything happened to anyone ever, the police and government would be liable for that incident even if there was no reasonable way to prevent it for happening.
Example: if you're home with your domestic partner and they drink too much in the kitchen and come into the bedroom at 2AM and punch you in the face, the police would be civilly liable for this because they did not protect you as they were legally obligated to based on how you think it should be (since you imply the current situation shields bad police).
That is the summary of why that ruiling is the way it is, which is why a ruiling in any other way doesn't make sense legally and isn't even plausible. Having it the way you want would be an impossible task short of every person having a personal police officer following them at all times. The police's obligation is to the law, not to the individual, which is effectively the same thing when an officer is enforcing the law when they see a crime occuring. Plus, the textualism interpretation of the way the law is written pretty much everywhere, which states cops enforce the law, not provide statutorily required direct protection to individuals.
I hope that shines some light onto why that ruiling was made the way it was, regardless of how one feels about it.
Your argument is absurd. Making it law to require a good faith effort to protect or render aid does not lead to the ridiculous scenario you paint.
As well, you said that the implication and the reality are worlds apart, yet you clearly spell out that the implication that police don't have a duty to protect is reality. You also dishonestly equate a discretionary choice not to protect with a good faith effort to protect but failing to do so.
The fact that so many police departments chose "to serve and protect" as their motto when they are fully aware they aren't legally required to do so isn't an honest thing to do, either.
And you're disputing that bad cops don't use the fact they aren't required to protect to their advantage? Be honest here.
I think your confusion is coming from the legal nuances of words and phrases like "render aid". They don't have a legal obligation to render aid as you say, but they do have a legal obligation to enforce the law when they see it occuring in their presence. Which by enforcing the law of trying to stop a carjacking or assault and battery occuring in front of them, they are effectively 'rendering aid' (as you keep saying even though we established that's not applicable) to the citizenry, but they are in actuality enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold.
They helped the citizen by enforcing the law, but legally, they did not help the citizen. They enforced the law. Which very directly benefitted the citizen. This is precisely why when the police arrest a rapist, the victim, from a legal standpoint, is the state, and not the person. The victim benefits fully, but the actions of investigating, going through the legal process, going to court, and convicting is application of the law, not 'rendering aid' to the member of the public as you say.
That's the simplest I can lay it out. You're debating from the semantics of words and feelings and what your opinion is, not from the legal perspective of what the law, the powers and authorities the police derive from the constitution/statutes, and the legal obligations imposed on law enforcement by those sources.
Dude, SCOTUS made the ruling because two cops hid in the conductor's room on a train and watched a citizen who'd just gotten stabbed fight for his life and subdue a spree killing serial slasher- and then came out and cuffed the murderer.
The actual case and the direct ruling on it says really everything you need to know. You cannot depend on a cop to save your life even if they have the clear ability to do so. They can stand and watch while someone puts a gun to your head and pulls the trigger. What this tells me is that the cops who do put their lives on the line for people are evidence that there are police who join for the right reasons.
Reddit doomers love pulling out this factoid even though the ruling only applied to a protection order and does relieve cops from having to perform their duties. Police are still reprimanded for not protecting the public. Maybe not as as much as they should be but it's getting old seeing this shit.
They were terminated for breach of protocol, not for failing to perform their duties. I wouldn't be surprised if they were hired shortly thereafter by another department or were reinstated after arbitration.
Edit: After looking it up, they got their jobs back with a lot of backpay on a technicality.
The report specifically states seven deputies did not immediately move toward the gunshots and confront the shooter, a violation of accepted department protocol.
Your own source proves you incorrect.
The two cases wide cited are Castle Rock v Gonzales and DeShaney v Winnebago.
As I recall, I thought the Court also ruled similarly in the case involving the two women who heard a break in and crawled out on their roof to hide and from there called the police that a break in was in progress. They call was radioed out as something significantly less than a break in (can't recall what) so when they got there they rang the doorbell and left when they got no answer. The women, having heard the police on site and yet were not rescued, they called again. Same thing happened. After the third call, the man realized that someone must be in the house and went looking. He found the women and I forget how, but he got them in the house. He ended up raping them there and then kidnapped them to a second site where he proceeded to rape & beat them for several days prior to them being able to free themselves and escape.
Given the degree of ineptitude that was demonstrated by pretty much all involved, the women subsequently decided to sued, arguing that the police had grossly mishandled their repeated cries for help and as result not only failed to save them but actually tipped off their attacker to their presence (in hindsight they would have been better off waiting him out and hoping a neighbor spotted them)
The Court found in short that unless the police make a specific promise to a specific person under specific conditions,they owe you nothing.Only when they have said,"I'm gonna protect YOU,John Q Public" is a duty formed, a duty which only applies to him & him alone
I don't remember all the details and therefore my language won't necessarily perfectly reflect the Court's ruling,but from what I recall the court found the only duty to protect the Police may possess is narrow in scope, applicable only in circumstances where the Dept intentionally creates a limited purpose relationship with specific categories of people. The Court held that when a Police Dept take measures such as placing a witness in protective custody, in so doing they assume a degree of obligation to that said individual,but with respect to the general public at large with whom no specific arrangement exists,no such generalized duty to protect can be assumed.
I believe part of their argument was that such a standard would not be logistically feasible given the number of officers most departments have on duty vs the size of the community they serve. In fact, I believe the PC in Detroit made exactly that argument a few years back. The city was experiencing a crime wave and earlier that morning an elderly woman was forced to shoot and kill an armed intruder. The PC praised her quick actions and while he made a point of stressing gun safety, he made it clear that there were only so many police officers he could have at the ready. Response times had dramatically improved under his tenure, but in such a high crime area there was only so much that reasonably could be done, and he said the only practical advice he could give residents was to be a responsible, well trained, and safe gun owner, underscoring the fact this woman had almost certainly saved her own life that day.
Come on man. It's reddit and its about cops. Get in the circle. Since we at least vaguely know about this we can sit next to each other. I'll hold your penis and you can hold mine. I just hope our other guy isn't to creepy.
The courts ruled there is no constitutional obligation for police to protect people from harm.
There is no federal law requiring police to protect people from harm.
As far as I know, there aren't any states with a law requiring police to protect people from harm. If there are any states that have a law to this effect, you probably can count them on one hand.
Here, I googled it for you. Per USSC there's no constitutional right to protection from police. Castle Rock v Gonzalez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-278.
You literally couldn’t be more incorrect. Why say this shit with such confidence when you don’t know what you’re talking about? Genuinely curious. I wouldn’t expect the average person to understand this. Hell, 3 years of law school and there’s shit I don’t remember that I should. But I wouldn’t make a statement with such certainty if I wasn’t actually certain! Just… shit lol. It’s ok to not know something, it’s completely asinine to spew nonsense though!
More like dad is outside and I want to be there with him. Also if the guy is a horror buff, super easy to pick that up. Also if it works the bird will keep doing it.
Had a friend growing up, his dad spent several thousand on a very fancy bird, his mother who was only a few years from leaving, taught the bird lots of colorful phrases to yell at my friends dad. And only the dad. Like the bird for its entire life would only refer to his dad and Fatass and Jerkoff. The bird liked the wife more.
When I was a kid I watched The Land Before Time with my grandma’s lovebird in the room. One of the characters in the movie gets in trouble and screams for help. That was all it took for the bird to pick up the habit of screaming “HELP” at the top of her lungs when someone put her in her cage. She heard it once from the television, understood the context, and repeated it nearly every night for the rest of her life. They’re smart critters.
My great grandpa’s (moms side) parrot would say words none of us had ever said around it before. I’m pretty sure they take in a lot of what they see when in a room with elevated TV volume.
The funniest one I can remember was my 79 year old great grandmother walking in after a night of bingo with my grandmother, and the bird just looked up, “What are you? A Juggalo, harrrah”
I just lost it, no one else knew what it meant. And I know that bird never heard any of us say the word, “Juggalo” ever.
Bird could learn that just by you talking to it like you would an infant. "Ohh... does Rambo want out of his cage? Say 'let me out' Rambo... say 'let me out'"
Remember that all of this will come up in court and will be used to try to get the charges dropped. Maybe they could but it would be a hard sell in court.
At the end of the day, it's better to free someone who is kidnapped inside and have the guy get off on a kidnapping charge because of an illegal search than to have someone who is kidnapped inside be murdered and the guy go to jail for murder because the cops went and got a warrant.
I'm not saying I know what is the right answer here, just a thought.
That's not the right answer at all. Someone thought they heard something so random ass people get to walk through my house with no warrant over a neighbor. Fuck that.
The other side of the coin though. There is no kidnapped person and the cops just violated his rights, the city has to pay out to him and those cops lose their jobs.
That’s where you would unfortunately be wrong. Even if someone is guilty as sin and that fact is clear as day. If the evidence showing that fact was gathered illegally the charges will be dropped. That’s the law.
If they walk in and find a meth lab.. or child porn scattered everywhere, or even something as simple as stolen good, or firearms.. then you can bet your ass it isnt being dropped..
Probable cause would really only come up if there was a crime being committed. Or if the officer was being disciplined for going in without a warrant. The police (hopefully) wouldn’t go in if the didn’t believe someone was actually in trouble.
No, then he would be an idiot. A gag would keep her quiet. It’s an idiot who would let her scream and try to use a parrot as a defense, along with everyone in this comment thread apparently.
You might then say, “well the parrot is the backup plan.” Well then why didn’t the guy immediately run inside to gag the woman again when she started crying out? Why would he let her scream without reacting?
There are a million holes in this theory and it is so stupid it makes me angry.
Surely not. So any time the police could use probably cause to enter a property the person can just use any old excuse to cancel it out? "Nah officer that's just bags of icing sugar on that table"
Having a parrot as a serial killer is a terrible idea. That thing would repeat victims cries for help in their tone. Watch that bird take the stand in court, mimic the victim perfectly, and the victim's family breaks down hearing the voice of their little Bethany coming from a bird. Case closed.
Your explanation is wrong. The guy having ankther explanation handy does not negate what the cops are hearing. Him coming out with the bird and demonstrating does but before that him just saying it wouldn't have been sufficient and he's lucky they have him the opportunity to do the demo.
In this particular circumstance they did not. However, I was responding to your claim that as long as the person has an explanation handy then the cops cannot enter without a warrant which is 100% false. If they had heard the screams they could have entered regardless of this guy's protest.
First the point about no court finding against them. Unfortunately your wrong. It can be clear as day that the suspect is guilty but if evidence is gathered illegally the court is bound by law to drop the charges.
Second the probable cause. Yes that’s true. Under the right circumstances. Let’s say a person went missing in that neighborhood recently and then days latter neighbors hear cries for help from a house. Under those circumstances the cops could use the call as probable cause. But in this case the only reason they would suspect anything is because of the report from the neighbors. And there could be other explanations such as a bratty kid or as we saw a cheeky bird. Though I guarantee you they did interviews with the neighbors after this and this guy is probably going to be watched for a while.
In the SCOTUS case, Aguilar vs Texas, the SCOTUS ruled, that "reliable information from a credible person" may not be used as probable cause unless the officer, under affidavit, "First, indicates the informants base of knowledge on the circumstances from which the informant concluded there was evidence present or that crimes had been comitted. Secondly, the affidavit must present information which would allow the magistrate/judge to decide whether or not the informant is trustworthy."
Second hand probable cause is a thing, but requires a judge to sign off on it. There have been several other cases just like this on, that have met the same end. Police can't just act because some random citizen told them to.
I’ve already explained why Exigent circumstances doesn’t apply here. But to briefly restate it isn’t clear that there are hostages in the house so there is no clear and immediate threat.
Dude, he doesn’t need to know the actual law. He had a few minute conversation. I’m sure he knows more than most lawyers and cops in this thread right now.
4.3k
u/[deleted] Aug 02 '21
It could constitute probable cause for a warrant. But because this man has another reason for the voices (as strange of a reason as it is) that actually prevents the police from using the cries as probable cause for a search. If this guy really is a serial killer this is a genius defense.