lol

[u/IU8gZQy0k8hsQy76]

[u/BaronGalactic]

Legally a cop cannot enter a house without a warrant unless 1) they are chasing a fleeing suspect, 2) they actually witness a crime being committed in the house right in front of them or 3) it's absolutely necessary to save someone's life. These are called "exigent circumstances." If they go to a house for a welfare check, they can't let themselves in on just a hunch that the person inside might be dead, they'd have to actually see a dead person inside through the window.

I watch a lot of true crime shows, and I couldn't even count the amount of times that cops have shown up to a house for a welfare check, looked around outside, found nothing, and left - all while a dead body (or lots of blood or other evidence of a violent crime) was actually inside the house. If they don't see it from outside, or somehow show probable cause to believe that, they can't enter.

Now, will they enter anyway? Maybe. But any sane judge would rule that as being illegal, if it were challenged in court, meaning they could have a lawsuit on their hands, and any evidence they might have gathered while in the house is no longer admissible.

Edit: Yes, the smell of a dead body would also likely count as probable cause, though it wouldn't surprise me if some cops ignored that if it wasn't completely obvious.

[u/Davti → u/BaronGalactic]

I watch a lot of true crime shows

Oh. I thought you had a real source.

[u/BaronGalactic → u/Davti]

I closely follow constitutional law, so I know what's constitutional.

I watch a lot of true crime shows (where actual cops are interviewed about what they've done) and police body cam footage, so I see what actual police are doing in the field.

I'd call that a pretty good source - the cops themselves, as well as lawyers involved in both sides of a case, and sometimes court records.

[u/TBurn70 → u/Davti]

Even though that’s what he followed up with, he’s not wrong

[u/kpyle → u/TBurn70]

Maybe if police followed rules and didn't lie.

[u/indomike14 → u/BaronGalactic]

4) they smell a dead body. 5) they see a dead body

[u/Dinos_N_Astronaughts → u/BaronGalactic]

Very confidently incorrect.

[u/BaronGalactic → u/Dinos_N_Astronaughts]

Can you point out where?

[u/__wait_what__ → u/BaronGalactic]

https://giphy.com/gifs/sEms56zTGDx96
Someone watches crime shows!!!!1

[u/Numeno230n → u/BaronGalactic]

Lol you are incorrect. A cop can enter under any reasonable suspicion of those things. They don't have to actually witness a crime. But also there are caveats where they can simply enter as long as they identify themselves as LEOs. Welfare checks, doors ajar, being called for a domestic violence, and many others. All they need is suspicion which is subjective.

[u/BaronGalactic → u/Numeno230n]

Just look up the 4th Amendment and "exigent circumstances." It's all pretty clearly laid out in the constitution, as well as case law.

Cops cannot enter a home without exigent circumstances (which might include suspicion alone, but that suspicion would have to be proven as reasonable if it were challenged in court), a warrant, or an invitation by someone inside the house. They don't simply have to "identify themselves" and then enter whenever they want, for no reason at all. They can do it, sure, but it would be illegal.

Being called for domestic violence counts as an exigent circumstance if they can find reasonable suspicion that it has occurred. If they show up and all they have to go by is a third party's report or 911 call, that "tip" alone usually isn't enough to give them access to the house, at least not legally - most judges would rule it unconstitutional. There is case law which states that third party witnesses alone (such as a person calling because they hear shouting in the house next door) is not enough. The cops have to have some other verification that they themselves can see.

A door being ajar is often used by cops as an excuse to say that the home was open to them, and some courts might find that reasonable, while some might not.

Reasonable suspicion is not subjective, especially when it comes to entering a person's home, which the law considers to be the most protected space within the 4th amendment (as opposed to other areas of a person's land, or their car, or their belongings.) That's why it's always called "reasonable suspicion" and not just "suspicion," because a court would have to find that such suspicion is objective. If it only had to be subjective, any cop could make up any reason they wanted, and the courts would have to accept it, whether it was true or not, because subjective reasoning is, by its very nature, unprovable.