In Parisi, however, instead of using their probable cause to get a warrant, the cops decided to go straight to Ms. Parisi’s home and press an ear to the door. When eavesdropping, the cop “was positive” that he heard two voices inside. But when he knocked and said “police” several times, no one answered the door and there was nothing but dead silence.
The cop then decided to enter the home without an invitation and without
a warrant. Of course, government entry
into our home is supposedly the “chief evil” at which the Fourth Amendment is
directed. Nonetheless, our state appellate court said that this
police invasion was okay because “quieting or ceasing their conversation and
not answering the door after [the officer] knocked and announced police
presence” created “the possibility of the intentional and organized destruction
of the drug[.]” This is also known as an
“exigent circumstance” — here, one intentionally created by the police when
they knocked and said “police” — and serves as one of the many exceptions to
the general rule that the police need an invitation or a warrant before
entering a home.
So, what should the occupants have done? Should they have been noisy instead of
quiet? Not exactly. In other cases, police have testified that after
they knock and announce their presence, hearing movement or voices inside also
causes them to fear that the occupants will destroy the evidence! But what if the occupants had answered the door? That might have been the worst of all worlds:
wouldn’t actually seeing the police, rather
than merely hearing a strange voice claiming to be the police, provide even more reason to shut the door and engage
in “the intentional and organized destruction of the drug”? Of course it would have. So it was a lose-lose-lose situation for Ms.
Parisi.
In short, the courts have created a situation where all the
police have to do is say “police,” and anything
the resident does or doesn’t do will necessarily mean that she might
be destroying evidence, thus leading to the necessary, police-created exigency justifying
entry into the home without invitation or a warrant.
It would seem, then, that the only time the police actually
need a warrant is if there was no one home when they came a knockin’. After all, with no one inside, there would be
no one to hear or see the police, and therefore no one to destroy the
evidence. Surely, in that situation, the police would have to
get a warrant before entering the home, right?
Actually, when the police entered Parisi’s home, they didn’t
find anyone trying to destroy the evidence, as they supposedly feared. In fact, they
didn’t find anyone at all! That’s
right, no one was home, yet the court still permitted the warrantless police invasion under the “evidence might be
destroyed” excuse. How? The court sidestepped the elephant in the
room and offered a creative explanation for the vanishing occupants: even
though there was one cop at the front door, one cop at the back door, and
“several additional officers” and even a “drug-detecting dog” surrounding the home, Parisi
and her fellow pot smoker must have slipped out —
evading police and canine detection — during a “one to two minute window of time”
after the police arrived.
Slippery, stealthy, under-the-radar pot smokers? I think teleportation would have
been a more likely explanation for their alleged disappearance. But now the good news: although the police can waltz into our homes at will, at least vampires have yet
to obtain a similar all-access pass.
The real problem is allowing the police to investigate under circumstance where there is no reason to justify their presence.The plain view doctrine assumes that the police have a legal right of presence.From the point of lawful presence springs forth the monster of consent. At this point of inquiry,the Fourth Amendment become comatose. Until the courts deal with the plain view doctrine and consent,we will have a suffering 4th Amendment. The pretext doctrine used to be applied to prevent the police from justifying searches upon hunches and guess work. The defense bar has it's work cut out for it.
ReplyDeleteExcellent piece...and truly terrifying.
ReplyDelete