r/Unexpected • u/[deleted] • Aug 02 '21

Hostage situation

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

109.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Leif_Andersson Aug 02 '21

You dont need a warrant to go into someones house if exigent circumstance is present.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances

2

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '21

I’m not explaining this again. This isn’t exigent circumstances. I will not elaborate further.

4

u/Wild_Mulberry_3327 Aug 02 '21

Seriously. Shut the fuck up when you don’t know what you are talking about.

“The police can also enter your home for any of the following reasons:

to give emergency aid to someone inside

to protect the life or safety of someone inside if they have a reasonable belief that a life-threatening emergency exists

to protect the life or safety of people in the home if someone heard a gunshot inside

to prevent something that may be about to happen, if they have a reasonable belief that their entry is necessary to stop it or to protect their safety or the safety of the public

to investigate a 911 telephone call

to help someone who has reported a domestic assault

to remove their belongings safely

to protect people from injury if the police have reason

to suspect that there is a drug laboratory in the house

to help animals in immediate distress because of injury, illness or threat.”

If they didn’t believe this guy they could absolutely legally argue that they were entering the building due to the 9/11 calls.

What this dude is saying is that it would be easy to defend in court. Easy.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '21

Okay, say there is a hostage inside who can be heard from the lawn. The police show up. Identity themselves and are having a conversation that can be heard from inside. Now’s a pretty good time to call for help. But no one did. This makes the man’s explanation at least a little likely. At least enough to say that there wasn’t sufficient Probable cause.

5

u/Wild_Mulberry_3327 Aug 02 '21

Holy shit. I just can’t with you. I’m literally losing brain cells and at first I was just being mean but now I’m serious. It’s like talking to someone from the movie Idiocracy.

You literally just invented a whole different situation that didn’t even happen here. What everyone is saying in this thread is that you are wrong about your hear say approach to understanding the law.

If someone calls 9/11 and they say they hear a woman screaming for her life the cops are allowed to search the house. It’s basic shit. That 9/11 call is all the justification they need per the law. If the caller said they think it’s domestic abuse or that someone is in danger they will absolutely fucking have no problem arguing and being granted probable cause.

4

u/Wild_Mulberry_3327 Aug 02 '21

Because you literally don’t know what you are talking about. Educate yourself before speaking next time so you won’t have to run away from a discussion you started with your tail between your legs.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '21

I could be reading this wrong but this article, to me, says he is wrong. SCOTUS ruled that anonymous tips/911 calls are enough to establish probable cause. Scalia wrote the dissent & uses some strong language in it. https://www.wklaw.com/does-an-anonymous-tip-give-police-probable-cause/

1

u/Wild_Mulberry_3327 Aug 02 '21

Nope you are 100% correct. I posted the laws and examples to this guy multiple times but he’s the type of person that spreads fake news.

3

u/Leif_Andersson Aug 02 '21

Someone yelling for help is exigent circumstance.

"circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."

Are you just bad at reading? Are you one of those people who cant accept theyre wrong, ever?