Doorbell Arrest Video | NO Warrant | COPS RESPOND on Youtube!



Video to submit? https://forms.gle/HmwnDQKvwvYPxe967
Blog: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/
Donate to the Institute for Justice: https://ij.org/support/give-now/thecivilrightslawyer/
For business inquiries: civilrightslawyer@ellify.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/johnbryanesq
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JohnBryanLaw
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/johnbryanesq/
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@thecivilrightslawyer

FAIR USE NOTICE This video may contain copyrighted material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for the purposes of criticism, comment, review and news reporting which constitute the fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, review and news reporting is not an infringement of copyright.

NOTE: We don’t condone threats or violence of any kind. If you are upset or outraged by acts of government misconduct featured in this video, we encourage you to utilize lawful means of expression, including becoming involved in the political process, as well as seeking accountability through the judicial system.

NOTE ALSO: The information you obtain here is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your letters and electronic mail, or other submissions or messages. However, contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship is established and documented in a written agreement.

source

29 thoughts on “Doorbell Arrest Video | NO Warrant | COPS RESPOND on Youtube!”

  1. That’s one of the reasons why I don’t want to move to the south specially Georgia I’d rather stay in Illinois because I believe you have to really bootlick law-enforcement when you get past the Mason Dixon line

  2. This looks like some horrible police work.

    That said, i have some legal questions maybe someone can answer. I thought I heard the guy say it was not his house. Regardless if whether I misheard, would it change the curtilage situation if it was not the man's house? If it does matter if it is the man's house, do the police have to know it is not his house? Do they have to assume it is his house if he does not say anything one way or the other?

  3. In Minnesota v Olson, , 495 U.S. 91 (1990), police illegally entered the home of a third party and executed an arrest warrant for a defendant who was hiding within the home. The homeowners did not consent to the police's entry into the home. The defendant made inculpatory statements that led to his murder conviction at trial; yet, due to the fact that the arrest occurred as a result of an illegal search, the fruit of the poison tree doctrine resulted in the statements being suppressed and the conviction was vacated.

    Olson stands for the proposition that absent exigent circumstances, the police may not enter one's home to effectuate an arrest warrant unless they also have a search warrant for the premises.

    If the concept of curtilage as expressed in Collins v. Virginia 138 S.Ct. 1663 (2018), and in Florida v Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), applies to the front porch, then the police would have to claim "hot pursuit" as the exigent circumstance justifying the warrantless entry. The problem with Olson's holding is that, when coupled with Collins and Jardines, the Olson decision should force the police to obtain a warrant before entering curtilage area of the property, which would definitely curtail the police tactic of sticking their foot inside a person's door, thereby preventing home owners from closing the door and risk "assaulting" the officer. The front door would definitely be considered curtilage.

    As indicated by the Olson court, the police could easily sit outside the home and make sure to arrest the suspect should they leave the house, but that entry is forbidden absent a warrant or exigent circumstances.

    The only thing necessitating the "arrest" of this individual is the police officer's fear of losing direct and immediate access to the defendant should he enter the home. Getting the warrant, if warranted, would provide the police with the desired access. However, even with a warrant, the defendant was under no obligation to speak to the police and cannot be compelled to provide any statement whatsoever to the police should he exercise his fifth amendment. Having no obligation to speak to the police, and affirmatively expressing his desire to not talk with the police, the defendant had every right to terminate voluntary contact with the police. If the contact is to be made into a detention, then the Terry v Ohio standard should apply, namely that the person must be suspected of committing a crime. If the police had a genuine right to force questioning and identification upon the defendant, then the officer could have made the case to the court and sought a search warrant and an arrest warrant to take the defendant into custody. However, the officer claimed that the failure to provide ID constituted obstruction. However, obstruction cannot be the mere refusal to answer questions, otherwise the right to remain silent would be destroyed. Instead, obstruction requires actual physical interference with the police's exercise of their duties.

    In this case, there is no indication that the defendant actually physically interfered in any way. Verbal statements made from the next yard over hardly constitute interference.

    There appears to be no probable cause to arrest the defendant nor even to detain him. And, one could easily contend that the detention and arrest were indeed retaliatory because the defendant refused to identify.

    The police need to take the time to get a warrant if they wish to compel someone to identify themselves, especially when the person is within the privacy of their own home (and its curtilage). If they can't convince a judge that the search warrant is necessary, then they have no business arresting the person in the first place. And, if they fail to get the warrant and violate the privacy of the home, then not only should the officer's arrest be deemed illegal, it should result in revocation of qualified immunity. Olson has been the law of the land since 1990. Collins has been so since 2018. Jardines has been so since 2013. There is no excuse for law enforcement to continue abusing the 4th amendment by entering a person's home to obtain identification.

  4. That’s the sad part I hate cops that think there above the law n have the right to do what ever that want to do them cops need to be off the force hope the guy fill a lawsuit

  5. Yet another case of cops willing to break the law to try to catch someone breaking the law. Apparently these cops thought they had enough evidence to drag unidentified people off of private property. I think they better study the Constitution better before they try something like this again.

  6. "Do cops need a warrant to seize/detain/arrest a man within the "curtilage" of his home" the man said "its not my house" . The officers were investigating an assault and hit and run (apparently caught on video) they were directed to a second location where they discovered a car that matches the description of the assault vehicle as well as one of the females that was in the assault video. I think any reasonable jury would conclude there is probable cause and further investigation is warranted.

  7. Easy case- the cops needed a warrant and had more than enough evidence to get one (although entering on the property to view the suspect car could be an issue on its own). I’m a retired nj cop and would’ve applied for the warrant- it wasn’t handled correctly.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top