It was the summer of July 05 and someone was driving past a house saw that the door was open they called the police.The police came inside the house and just saw boxes and 2 mattresses because the people just moved in.It was a huge house with 18 bedrooms and they called backup.They entered the houseand they didn't see any blood on the door.they didn't see a broken door or lock. One officer lied about he saw a washer and he was thinking that someone was trying to steal pipes.they didn't know who was living in the house but when they entered the house and found a passport with a name who was living in the house then they went to the second floor they broke the door and saw lights and there was 3 inch marijuana clones in a closet. Then they went back to the judge to get a search warrant to enter the house.then they went to the basement and found about 80 plants that were three feet big long .THE QUESTION IS DID THE POLICE DO THE RIGHT THING??

Yes they did correct procedure, a house that would have been empty before, with a door open,

That was all the probable cause they needed to do a welfare check of the home.

Mattresses could mean homless people living in the home, since that is common in abondanded houses sleeping on the floor.

And once they discovered a crime, they left the house and got a warrant.

I would say at worst the first pot find could be thrown out, since it was found on a welfare check, but the second find after getting a warrant would be valid for sure.

THE QUESTION IS DID THE POLICE DO THE RIGHT THING???Hello bobbo:

That's the wrong question to ask at this point, because there is no answer. Your lawyer will argue that they did the wrong thing. The prosecutor will argue that they didn't. I certainly don't know.

You ask, “did they do the right thing”. In terms of the law, there are books written on the subject that would measure 3 feet thick. If the cops did this, and if they thought that, and if they saw this, and if you did that, and... blah, blah, blah.

The only answer in your case, will come when the judge rules on the admissibility of the evidence, and that's AFTER they've sifted through 3 feet of law books.

Another factor bearing on whether the cops did the right thing or not, is the quality of your lawyer. The better your lawyer, the more things the cops did wrong.

So, hire the best lawyer you can, and hope everybody holds their mud.

But, of course, everybody won't. So it doesn't matter if the warrant was good or not, because the snitch will put you there anyway. The case will never go to trial. That's how they do it - not by great police work.

excon

What this maen probable cause.

Probable cause is the event or action that allows a police officer to act within the scope of their authority. The event or action that would give them grounds for a search or to enter a house.

And the meaning of it varies by state to state, what is allowed in one state is not allowed in another at times. And even within the same state you have liberal judges who look differently at it.

So your lawyer says police had no right to enter house, the DA says they had, and the judge decides in a evidence hearing.

What this mean sufficient reasons?

Well, the officers didn't need probable cause to enter the house because of exigent circumstances. Officers have a duty to protect people and their property. The cops were called to that location by a passer by so they have a duty to act. The doors open, so they will clear the house to make sure that a burglar's not inside. Upon doing so, they discover marijuana plants in "plain view", then they secure a search warrant, which is proper procedure. They come back search and find more dope, that's the scope of the warrant. With a search warrant they can search the entire curtiledge of this home which includes, vehicles, outbuildings, etc... that is connected to property.