I am in Missouri. Without going into the long detailed story about what happened, I'll just provide the facts.

The people who lived at the home was not at home.
Cops came to speak to someone who was at the home.
The person who they wanted to speak with "might"(later found out not) been involved in a shooting
They knocked on the door and asked to come in and was told come on in.
They asked if any guns in the home.
Person at the home told them no.
They walked through the house and found a BB gun(unloaded) between the washer and dryer, and a compound bow(with no arrows) in the bathroom closet.
Walked back through to living room and said I thought you had no guns.
Person told them he didn't have any guns, wasn't his guns didn't know about them.

Told the person they were calling his probation officer and his probation would be revoked and they would be back.

Cops left with BB gun and bow

After they found out this person wasn't involved, they called him and told him no charges would be filed and come to sheriff's station in morning to pick up items.


Did the cops have a right to search the home without a warrant and without the home owner's permission? Did they have a right to take the BB gun and bow?


I was thinking they could say "probable cause", and because the "suspect" was there. However, suspect opened the door, so was not hiding in the home and he wasn't much of a suspect if they left him there.

Cops asked if they could come in and was let inside the house. Also if the suspect was on probation, he was fair game and had to let them in anyway. As part of his probation the police are allowed to search his home for any weapons or drugs at any time without a search warrant. It's already worded in his probation paperwork that he signed prior to getting on probation. Look at his copy of this paperwork and you'll see for yourself.

Yes, they were let in by someone inside the home. That person did not stop them from searching. Whether the person was on probation or not, as long as he did not stop them from searching they could search.

The fact that he was on probation cinched their right to search.

However, you are missing part of the issue here. The constitutional right preventing illegal search and seizure does not necessarily prevent a law enforcement officer from searching. What it does do is prevent the results of that search being used as evidence against the person. Cops are more likely to search and worry about the legalities later.

Cops asked if they could come in and was let inside the house. Also if the suspect was on probation, he was fair game and had to let them in anyway. As part of his probation the police are allowed to search his home for any weapons or drugs at any time without a search warrant. It's already worded in his probation paperwork that he signed prior to getting on probation. Look at his copy of this paperwork and you'll see for yourself.

Wasn't his home. He was just there.

If this has all in the past now, and they weren't out of order with you at the time, and no one has been charged, and you've got all your items back again... what's the big fuss?

Wasn't his home. He was just there.

Doesn't matter. If he was left alone in the house, he had tacit possession. But again, the issue of whether the search was legal or not bears only on the use of the results as evidence.

The cops did have the right to take the BB gun and the bow. If they called and said come get the stuff, then they could not link the BB gun and the bow to any other crime that is pending in their jurisdiction. It's done all the time.

Doesn't matter. If he was left alone in the house, he had tacit possession. But again, the issue of whether the search was legal or not bears only on the use of the results as evidence.



Exactly and the Police aren't going to sort out who "lives" there, who "stays" there, who "visits" there - and what the exact time frames are for each category.

You open the door and let them in - they're in, your house or not.

Thanks for the responses... yes cops said that the stuff could be picked up, it hasn't been picked up yet. Property owners are out of town. He wasn't left alone in the house, but yes he was at the house.

There was no evidence that a crime had been committed. The "victim" called and told someone where he was and that he had been shot. The area the "victim" was supposedly in was searched and no one was found. 3-4 hours later the "victim" was found, pulled over by a highway patrolmen and taken to the hospital. This is when the cops realized the "victim" was not shot and was only a "victim" of his drinking and stupidity. That is when the cops called and said to come get the things from the sheriff's station.

As far as what is the problem comment... someone should be able to leave their home and not worry about cops walking in and searching it for no reason. The "victim" stated he was shot with a 9 mm, how does that justify taking a BB gun and a bow with no arrows? The "suspect" opened the door for them, so was no hiding in the home from the cops. If the "suspect" was such a suspect, wouldn't the cops have taken him into custody? Oh you, great searching they did, they missed the pellet gun that had pellets in it and a box of pellets next to it that was in the corner of the living room. What can be expected from a sheriff's department that had 3 people escape and they didn't know until someone called in and told them they saw them running through town, an hour after they escaped.

Oh, well. No one was shot and just shows have screwed up things are and what drugs and alcohol does to a person.

As far as what is the problem comment.........someone should be able to leave their home and not worry about cops walking in and searching it for no reason. Hello farmgirl:

You aren't listening... They HAD a reason, and don't need a warrant to search someone on probation. If your friends want to make sure their house isn't searched, they shouldn't allow someone who is on probation to be there.

Look. I'm not a fan of the cops. But they do enough wrong stuff that IS abundantly clear. We don't have to accuse them of wrong stuff when they didn't do anything wrong.

excon

And again you are thinking that laws prevent things from happening. Rarely is that the case. Most of the time laws describe the penalities for actions. While these penalities are supposed to be (and usually are) a deterrant to breaking the laws, its not always the case.

Whether the seized weapons could have been used as evidence is one issue. Whether the cops were allowed to do what they did is another.

As far as what is the problem comment.........someone should be able to leave their home and not worry about cops walking in and searching it for no reason. The "victim" stated he was shot with a 9 mm, how does that justify taking a BB gun and a bow with no arrows? The "suspect" opened the door for them, so was no hiding in the home from the cops. If the "suspect" was such a suspect, wouldn't the cops have taken him into custody? Oh ya, great searching they did, they missed the pellet gun that had pellets in it and a box of pellets next to it that was in the corner of the living room. What can be expected from a sheriff's department that had 3 people escape and they didn't know until someone called in and told them they saw them running through town, an hour after they escaped.

Oh, well. No one was shot and just shows have screwed up things are and what drugs and alcohol does to a person.


I don't understand why you continue to blame the Police when they (apparently politely) knocked on the door and asked if they could come in and someone said, "Sure," and in they came.

The person who opened the door could have said, "No," and then this would be an entirely different thread.

Am I missing something?

Missouri Farm Girl - I am beginning to think you have been watching way too much crime TV.

I don't understand why you continue to blame the Police when they (apparently politely) knocked on the door and asked if they could come in and someone said, "Sure," and in they came.

The person who opened the door could have said, "No," and then this would be an entirely different thread.

Am I missing something?


Right, they were told they could come in.

No, they weren't told they could search and as someone else mentioned, they weren't told they couldn't(to my knowledge). They didn't ask if they could search.

The person had no reason to not tell them they could come in. He hadn't done anything wrong.

Yes, on probation over child support. His probation says "no hemp or hemp oil and obey all laws"

That is the restrictions of his probation.

Unless, it is standard practice that someone on probation can not be around BB guns or bows, then I'm not sure how the BB gun or bow would affect his probation.

I've never been on probation, so really don't know what you can and can't do.

I understand laws don't prevent things from happening, but rather describes what happens to someone who breaks the law. Same as speed limit, legal age of drinking, etc, etc.

Off the topic of whether they were allowed to search or not.


Do the same procedures a cop is to follow when serving a search warrant apply when they search without a warrant?

If the person living there is on probation, yes the probation officer can give them permission to search, they don't need a warrant or probable cause to search if you are on probatoin or parole if they have the PO permission to search for them.

But they don't autually have to ask to search, they ask to come in and if no one tells them not to search or no one tells them to leave, they have an assumed permission, normally holds up in court

If the person living there is on probation, yes the probation officer can give them permission to search, they don't need a warrant or probable cause to search if you are on probatoin or parole if they have the PO permission to search for them.

But they don't autually have to ask to search, they ask to come in and if no one tells them not to search or no one tells them to leave, they have an assumed permission, normally holds up in court

I understand that.

From what I understand, someone on probation is subject to being search at anytime by his PO.

Not arguing with that, not even arguing with anything that was said, just trying to understand it all.

The only thing I saw weird is that the person on probation wasn't a residence of the home, so I wouldn't see any reason to search except for maybe to locate and seize the possible weapon. If there was an actual gun(instead of a BB gun) in the home, I would see their reasoning for taking it.

But, what I have a hard time wrapping my head around is this:


Let's say I call up the cops and say " hey Joe called me and said he was (wherever he said) and he had been shot by Bob."

Cops go out to the place Joe was supposed to be located and couldn't find him anywhere and couldn't find no evidence of a crime. Joe doesn't show up at the hospital. Bob tells someone that he didn't shoot Joe, Bill did.

Someone gets ahold of Bill and tells him what is going on. Bill says I didn't shoot anyone. Bill calls the deputy himself and says hey there is where I am at, come on down. I haven't done anything.

They show up where Bill is(not his house) and decides to search it.

There is no proof of a crime. The only proof is me calling and saying that Joe called and told me. But Joe told me Bob done it, not Bill. So, if you use what I am saying as evidence, then Bill shouldn't be involved.

Would it make sense to believe Bob, when the "victim" said Bob done it.


The whole point is... anyone could call up the cops and say "hey (whatever name) called and said (whatever name) shot him and they can go search someone else with no proof of anything actually happening?