"Loud Sex Enough for Cops to Search Your Home, Court Rules" (Daniel Tencer, Raw Story, 3/16/10)

Aside from the outrageous injustice of anyone being jailed for growing marijuana, the problem with this ruling is that if police are allowed to search peoples' homes on the basis of anonymous 911 calls, they can easily search anybody they want to merely by calling in false "emergencies" themselves or arranging for someone else to do so (perhaps a suspect seeking to cut a deal for lenient treatment). Who would know the difference, other than law enforcement and the people they regularly work with on a collaborative basis? There is no independent oversight of 911 calls guaranteeing that defense lawyers and civil liberties advocates will have equal access to the content of those calls and the identity of the callers.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild;

911 calls are recorded and the telephone number from where the calls came from. The 911 calls are accessible to defense lawyers.

So a vast conspiracy of cops getting people to make false calls per se to gain access is moot. Currently with the way the police and the courts and prosecutors work along with prisons the likelihood of the cops having to stretch a point to get access is also moot. Sadly SCOTUS has expanded the use of probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

The scenario you paint of get out of jail cards for false 911 calls would implode on itself in no time at all and any guilty verdicts overturned.

While my sympathy is with the guy he needed to have been more aggressive in telling the police NO you can't enter stay here.

In San Francisco based on past incidents police here are required to investigate when women are heard screaming in their homes or apartments. San Francisco has a very strict compliance with stalker and keep away court orders. They do need to investigate and clarify.

I do know of women who were glad the police did come when a keep away court order was being ignored. I do know of an incident where a woman was the victim of a snatch and grab off the streets and police investigation stopped a brutal gang rape beating and her probable murder.

There are two sides to the coin - damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Ron Getty

Ron,

  Thanks for your thoughts. My responses follow...

Dear Starchild;

911 calls are recorded and the telephone number from where the calls came from. The 911 calls are accessible to defense lawyers.

  Are you certain that the defense in all cases has access to the full calls, including the number of the caller? Is their access direct, or do they receive the information from the police or prosecutors? Are you sure that the 911 call centers themselves are not ever rolled in as a law enforcement function (i.e. operate under the aegis of the local police department or other law enforcement agency)?

So a vast conspiracy of cops getting people to make false calls per se to gain access is moot.

  The concern I raised does not require a "vast conspiracy". It could simply be individual officers or accomplices generating calls or failing to turn over call records, couldn't it? Even if it was proven that a police officer, or someone connected with a police officer, made a call that resulted in someone's home being searched -- and even proving that could be difficult if the call came from a pay phone, disposable phone, etc. -- how would the defense prove it wasn't a legitimate call? There's no law against anyone including cops calling 911 when they "believe" there is an emergency. The caller, if tracked down and subpoenaed as a witness, could simply say, "I heard what I heard," and who would be able to prove he/she was lying?

Currently with the way the police and the courts and prosecutors work along with prisons the likelihood of the cops having to stretch a point to get access is also moot.

  To the contrary, even with all the unconstitutional and immoral powers that police "legally" have, they still seem inclined to regularly "stretch a point" in order to get access, justify an arrest, etc. Haven't you heard about such cases?

Sadly SCOTUS has expanded the use of probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

The scenario you paint of get out of jail cards for false 911 calls would implode on itself in no time at all and any guilty verdicts overturned.

  *If* a pattern of police or their accomplices making such calls could be shown, that might result in some overturned guilty verdicts. But if not overused, such a practice could easily go undetected. When I was active with the SF Late Night Coalition, it was widely believed that the police would sometimes call about noise from clubs or parties, in order to have justification for going and breaking up the event. These may not necessarily have even been 911 calls, but even non-emergency calls provided enough justification for the police to come onto the premises without invitation, and take action including sometimes confiscating people's sound equipment.

While my sympathy is with the guy he needed to have been more aggressive in telling the police NO you can't enter stay here.

  Well yes, obviously.

In San Francisco based on past incidents police here are required to investigate when women are heard screaming in their homes or apartments. San Francisco has a very strict compliance with stalker and keep away court orders. They do need to investigate and clarify.

  If the residence about which a call comes in is known to involve a stalker, a stay away order, etc., that changes the equation somewhat -- although even then I'm not comfortable with police officers arbitrarily entering the premises to look around, so long as it's the law that once inside, any evidence they observe of an unrelated crime or "crime" can legally be used against the occupants.

I do know of women who were glad the police did come when a keep away court order was being ignored. I do know of an incident where a woman was the victim of a snatch and grab off the streets and police investigation stopped a brutal gang rape beating and her probable murder.

  Assuredly there will occasionally be such cases, just as would-be terrorists occasionally get apprehended by border controls, airport security, etc. This is what makes it difficult for the public to appreciate freedom enough to rein in law enforcement.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild

defense has complete and full access to the recorded tapes. all telephone numbers are recorded on a master list by address and therefore by location and owner. The same with cell phones.

I heard what I heard is called hearsay evidence and is in-admissible.

Once again it's what purpose do you have for entering the premises? And therefore make the case of actual or probable cause before I allow entry - it's called no you do not have the right of entry or search or seizure.

It's called standing up for your rights to have a search warrant duly signed for an d on by a court judge. It's telling the cop to screw off and bug off.

Ron Getty

Ron,

  "I heard what I heard" was a reference to what a police officer or accomplice who called 911 to create a pretense for a search might say on the witness stand in the unlikely event that defense lawyers were able to convince a judge to subpoena him to appear as a witness. Such a statement is not hearsay if the person making it is giving personal testimony about a sound he/she claims to have heard as the basis for making a call. As noted, a police officer could phone 911 and say he heard a scream, thereby providing (in the eyes of the court that issued this messed-up ruling) "probable cause" for a search. But in reality the "cause" would have been completely manufactured.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild;

Recorded 911 call with phone number.

Ron Getty