@leha, to get this straight is actually easy: if the police have suspicions about illegal activity, they obtain the warrant. This should have happened in Cleveland, and this should have happened in this case. However, the judge usually only issues the warrant when there's enough evidence for the entry. A single call is not nearly enough, i.e. in this case if the police followed the law, not only they wouldn't be able to enter without the warrant, but, assuming that the call was all they had, they wouldn't obtain the warrant as well - in which case they have to leave. In Cleveland, a single call wouldn't be enough either, but when the number of tips and suspicions accumulated, the warrant would be issued. This is how it's supposed to work in civilized society, and this is how it has been working for many decades in our country.
Not only the officers won't be charged with anything, but from the comments so far made by Parish, they will be rewarded. Contrary to numerous rulings of the Supreme Court, Parish claims that the call from 3rd party is already the exigent circumstance, and no warrant is required. I.e. all it takes for the police to break into your home, is somebody's word that violence _might_ be going on inside.
Note that the crime the occupants were arrested for was not anything related to the violence. It was obstruction, i.e. from the police's standpoint, not cooperating with their investigation (by not coming out or opening the door) is a crime by itself. Equally, the taser was used as punishment for non-compliance, i.e. for refusing to lay on the ground.
2013 Metro Newspapers. All rights reserved.
Website powered by Foundation