I can't fault the officer much, she made a quick decision, but I think the courts made the right decision. She should have pulled him over earlier.

A line has to be drawn.

I'll bet they'd be very glad.

This is exactly what the 4th amendment is about, and why officers have to obtain probable cause and warrants to enter and search one's house.

She could have pulled him over earlier - 4th amendment protections are weaker in cars than in houses - I'm not sure I think they should be, but that's a different question.

But having failed to do that, she should have gotten a warrant to enter his home.

Not completely clear.

Although it says she "followed it until Dugan pulled into a driveway".

That suggests there was time before he did that.

Not slamming the cop.

But, couldn't she legally have pulled him over simply because his vehicle matched the description?

I'm not sure how she can think that sticking her foot under the garage door is ok.

My message was not specifically directed at you.

But before you question the cop's judgment, think about a couple of things:

1) The trial judge, with years of experience and legal training, and with briefs present to him and time to reflect, made the wrong call.

2) The cop's decision to put her foot under the closing door was split second. Apparently, the suspect was inside and had ignored the flashing lights. She was in the middle of the investigation and had to make a split second decision. It's easy to critique in hindsight from the cheap seats.

She may have made a mistake in not pulling the guy over based on the matching description. Impossible to know the answer without knowing all of the facts, which are not recited in the article. All you need is an articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, per U.S. Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio.

"out to violate the driver's constitutional rights"

She did do it. With her own foot. Does that mean she thought she could ignore the constitution or are our police so poorly trained that they don't know we have rights guaranteed in the constitution. I don't believe either. I think she just let her human reflexes override her police training. Mistakes happen. I make them and I clean up those left by other people.

So you can argue with validity that she merely had a mental slip, and is not a bad cop in any sense of the phrase, but the constitution doesn't care why she violated the 4th amendment, only that she did. The evidence is tainted and can't be used.

Yes, cops are human, and maybe instead of laying her off a few months (as I did in my initial post, mostly lashing out at government in general) we should just make her re-test in the "things you can't do" part of the certification. I don't suspect she'll ever make the same or a similar mistake again.

The judge got it wrong, and he had the benefit of legal briefs and time to reflect on his decision. Once the door started to close, she had to make a split second decision.

You obviously are not a lawyer, nor have you worked in law enforcement. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to judge the cop's actions.

Continue to hate on cops if that's your outlook. just hope karma doesn't turn around and bite you in the behind should you ever need help from one.

From the story, it sounds as though she didn't turn on her lights until he had pulled into his driveway/garage, which means he was on his own property.

I'm not sure he has an obligation to let her into his garage at that point.

Or to stop his car in the driveway and let her search it/him.

Police, given the power they have, are prone to corruption and the abuse of that power, just like any other group with power. They also deal with stuff on the streets that may give them a skewed perspective, and they may not be that well educated about constitutional rights.

That's why we have those protections, right? So that those with power don't get carried away by it and abuse it.

"she had to make a split second decision. " She made the wrong one. It happens.

"judge the cop's actions." The officer violated a law she is sworn to uphold.

"blah blah blah" Yawn.

What a silly comment.

Apparently you haven't actually read the Constitution since you were required to in high school. And you obviously haven't given any thought to what the various parts of it actually mean.

Give it a try sometime. You'll be quite surprised.

OK. So now that you've left Kansas, why are you still reading the Journal-World? All it's going to do is bring up bad feelings. Surely you're not a glutton for punishment, are you?

And, considering how much you disrespect everyone else, perhaps it's YOU who ought to get a clue? Perhaps it's YOU who ought to keep your distance from now on?

So have a nice life in whatever state you've moved to. But please leave Kansas behind...TRULY behind.

Yes.

But, if she's on his property without a warrant (and his driveway is part of his property), I don't think he has an obligation to let her search him or his car, house, etc. without a warrant.

I'm not defending this guy, who clearly shouldn't be on the road if he can't stay sober and drive.

But, unless she only followed him for a very short time, she had plenty of time to pull him over long before he got to his garage - why didn't she?

Seems to me that fitting the description of a vehicle involved in a hit and run accident would be sufficient probable cause (or reasonable suspicion, or whatever the correct term is) to stop him that way.

I'd think that a garage fits with the house, and contains the same protections, regardless of attachment/detachment, but I don't know for sure.

It would be simpler, and perhaps better, in my view, for people to have the same 4th amendment protections in their cars, and I'm not sure I understand why they're weaker there, except for a very literal reading of the 4th amendment, which seems silly. They didn't have cars back then, so of course, they wouldn't list them.

Well, the police can stop you in your car and search you/it without a warrant, which they can't do in your house, right?

Drunk driving checks are an example of that - they stop people randomly, without any particular reason to believe they're drinking, and check for that.

In order to do that if you're in your house, they'd need probable cause and a warrant.

They can stop you from using a public road, as in making you pull over, but I don't think they can search your car without your consent or a warrant. They can search you for their safety, but I'm not sure they can search your man-purse (if you carry one), although they can remove it temporarily from your possession, once again, for their safety.

Of course, it's easier to look into a car's window to see a cache of AKs and the drug dog on public property can get lots closer to a package of cocaine in a car's trunk than one in a basement.

As for the drunkard driving checks, you agree to that when you sign your driver's license.

Wikipedia. Take it or leave it.

"In United States v. Jones, 565 U. S. __ (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that a search for Fourth Amendment purposes also occurs when law enforcement trespasses on a person's property for information gathering purposes, even if that person had no reasonable expectation of privacy."

I remember Justice Black answering a question about the bill of rights - he was asked if this didn't just make the police's job harder - he answered that's what it's supposed to do.

If she had pulled him over earlier, there wouldn't have been an issue, and he could have been prosecuted.

We seem to have given the police wider latitude and more power than I'd like already - I don't think we should continue in that direction.

It's not that easy to pigeonhole me - I have more complex views than that :-)

Yes, and they can use "exigent circumstances" too easily as well.

Too many warrantless searches too.

He's not a model citizen.

But that's not the point of constitutional protections - we don't select whether or not they're "deserved" by individuals.

It's not a "legal favor" to hold the police to the standards set for their conduct.

She could and should have pulled him over before he got to his property - then there wouldn't have been an issue.

Model citizen? He's a freaking menace! And an innocent man, or at least a respectful, law abiding member of our society, doesn't close the door in the face of an officer with the rollers on in his driveway. I understand and respect the constitutional protections. I just don't believe his were breached. From the ruling:

“The framers intended judicially issued warrants as a check on just those inclinations and to preserve for the citizenry a sphere of privacy in their own homes against undue government intrusion. "

The framers did not intend a scofflaw to buy time by reaching "home base." This ain't Kick the Can. The "intrusion" wasn't "undue"; she had a repeat offender dead to rights and performed an act as innocuous as sticking a twig between a screen door and the jamb. And it's absolutely a "legal favor" to suppress evidence found in his car when the alternative was that this jerk would have used his "sphere of privacy" to destroy that evidence if left to his own devices.

Ok - he shouldn't be driving without an interlock device - I strongly support that.

And, that idea, that the "good people" will just co-operate, so any who don't must be "bad guys" is highly flawed, in my opinion.

If you read the 4th amendment, it says nothing about "undue intrusion" - it simply mentions unreasonable searches, the need for probable cause and warrants, etc.

These are all judgment calls, of course, but in my view, the police already have more latitude than I am completely comfortable with, and allowing them to enter private property (the driveway), stick their feet under a garage door, and enter and search somebody without a warrant seems unreasonable to me.

"And, that idea, that the "good people" will just co-operate, so any who don't must be "bad guys" is highly flawed, in my opinion."

Rollers in your driveway. You just close the door on 'em?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

We'll just have to disagree. I don't see what transpired as "unreasonable" in any sense. He was the guy. They had him. Why she didn't pull him over IF she actually had that chance (not enough detail to accurately opine on that) is a good question. But in my opinion, a repeat DUI offender is akin to a loaded weapon exposed to the populace. His immediate apprehension should be paramount.

It's not clear that this guy ever saw that she turned on her list because she didn't do so until after he'd pulled into his garage.

But the real question is this: why not just go get a darn warrant? She had him. Matched his car and tag to the accident description. Followed him to the address of the car registration. It was 1 pm, broad daylight. Another officer was on scene with her. So why couldn't the two of them radio in their information, maybe even see if they could get someone at the accident scene to id the guy from his DL photo, and apply for a warrant? At that time of day, it wouldn't have taken long at all and they could have watched the house to make sure he didn't leave.

Why are so many people unwilling to hold police to the standards the Constitution sets for them?

It's the "law and order" thing, I think.

Especially when they get the right guy, and then have to let them go afterwards.

Why didn't she just pull him over before he got to his house? Seems like that wouldn't create the same constitutional issue to me.

With your version, they might get him for leaving the scene, but not for DUI, which bothers some people.

It doesn't matter what I would do, or not do.

You can't judge somebody guilty because they don't allow the police to search their house without a warrant.

We didn't know he was "the guy" until after the search - he could easily not have been. That's the problem - weakening 4th amendment rights/protections weakens them for everybody.

It's a difficult question, because the concrete is weighed against the abstract - "if you don't have anything to hide, why not just let the police do whatever they want?"

The answer is that the power of the state is very subject to abuse, and that our constitutional protections are a check on that abuse.

"You can't judge somebody guilty because they don't allow the police to search their house without a warrant."

Sure can't. But then that wasn't my argument.

"We didn't know he was "the guy" until after the search -"

False. Unless the officer's blind, the tag would have been clearly visible when she pulled into the driveway.

And I'm not arguing in any way that the police should be able to do anything they want. Merely that what she did in order to secure this criminal was not undue or unreasonable.

We didn't know anything about a DUI until she had him take a breathalyzer, right?

She may have known he was the leaving the scene of an accident guy, if she had his tag.

She may not have had the tag, but simply a description of the car leaving the scene.

And, she would have easily been able to get the tag before he was in the driveway if she'd been following him for a little while.

If she had stopped him while driving on the streets because his car matched the description, seen/smelled that he might have been intoxicated, given him a breathalyzer, and arrested him for DUI, later proved he had left the scene, and they had prosecuted him, that would have been reasonable to me.

Jesse,

Seems to me, and we're certainly lacking factual exactness here, that since the dispatcher had put out a full description that included the tag, while she may have spotted the vehicle and followed him for an undetermined distance, she must not have been close enough to read the tag until she got into the driveway or shortly before. Seems logical she's lighting him up the second she confirms it's the right car by the tag.

Let me ask you, any clue what "emergency equipment" entails? Been naggin' me since I read it.

"no legal favors for this bleepin' bleep"

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (from a source)

Four-time drunk driving bleeping bleep or not, he is entitled to the same legal favors (aka protections) as everyone else. On the day that is no longer true, America ceases to exist.

They might not have had all of that - they might just have had a general description of the car - make/model/color.

If they had his tag, then I agree there might be some sort of probable cause.

Thanks for pointing that out - I missed it. Then there's clearly no reason not to get a warrant, if they had all of that information, right?

They know where he lives, etc.

Simply get the warrant, then enter his property and search him.

Or, given all of that info, stopping him on the street while driving, and questioning him there seems reasonable as well. If he seems intoxicated, then get a breathalyzer test.

There's just no need for this officer to act the way she did - there were any number of other options that wouldn't have compromised his rights.

"If they had his tag, then I agree there might be some sort of probable cause."

Playing Romney, are we?

No, that comment was from before you pointed out they had it.

But, it's probable cause for a warrant, not for a warrantless search of his property.

I've already said numerous times that she could have pulled him over while driving without an issue, even without the tag number.

As far as I know, a simple match of the vehicle description would suffice there, since 4th amendment protections are weaker in cars.

Once he's on his own property, the situation changes, and she should have a warrant.

I didn't change my views at all - they've been consistent all along - 4th amendment protections are stronger on your property than while driving on the street.

As I said, it's difficult because a concrete thing is being compared to a more abstract one.

In this case, she had the right guy (although she didn't know he was DUI until after a breathalyzer).

But, constitutional protections exist to limit the power of the state (which is more abstract), because it's easily abused.

You do know that police are often wrong, even if they're convinced somebody's guilty, right? Do we really want to give them the ability to circumvent the 4th amendment based on their opinions?

She should have pulled him over while driving - I have no idea why she didn't do that. Then everybody's happy - they get the bad guy and they don't violate the 4th amendment.

Although, I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with the weakened 4th amendment protections while driving.

"Do we really want to give them the ability to circumvent the 4th amendment based on their opinions?"

There was no circumvention of the 4th amendment. She stopped a door from closing. From that point the guy still could have entered his home and refused to speak with them. Nor was it opinion. At that point she had the correct car w/ the correct tag.

They were already on his property - according to a link above, 4th amendment rights obtain on his property, even if he's not inside his house.

So, sticking her foot under the garage door to stop it from closing was a violation of the 4th amendment.

This is essentially what the appeals court judge said, as well.

Yes, for god's sake - I've already said they happened to be right this time. But they're not always, or not even usually right - they're often wrong.

Once you open the door to weakening the protections, it's rather difficult to close it again, and the rationale for doing so gets easier and easier.

Soon, you start to think it's ok if the cops suspect somebody, even without evidence.

Trials exist to determine guilt - concluding that somebody's guilty before that, and basing police procedure on that determination is a bit backwards.

"But they're not always, or not even usually right - they're often wrong."

Eaaasy, Tex! There have to be nearly a million police, and you rarely hear of the thousands of positives and jobs-well-done that occur every single day. Overwhelmingly, news involving police that finds the public eyes and ears is focused on the negative, scandalous, and corrupt. Don't go jumping the shark! (o;

"Once you open the door to weakening the protections, it's rather difficult to close it again, and the rationale for doing so gets easier and easier. Soon, you start to think it's ok if the cops suspect somebody, even without evidence."

The slippery slope argument always comes out when it comes to the Constitution. I truly wonder if there's a solid example of that kind of dissolution ever taking place.

I'm just arguing for common sense. The police might have the most difficult job there is in this country. But there are incidents of excess and corruption and stupidity within, no doubt.
I just hate to see people like this get any kind of break whatsoever. I understand how it protects all of us and all that good stuff. But things like sticking a foot under a garage door negating evidence is, to quote autie again, where good intentions run afoul of common sense.

Our 4th amendment protections have already been significantly weakened - more warrantless searches are ok now, and the SC just ruled that hearing a toilet flush constitutes "exigent circumstances".

That means that if they knock on your door, suspect you of having drugs, and hear a toilet flush, they can break down your door and search your house.

Previously, they had to get a warrant, then exigent circumstances were a reason for a warrantless search, but that meant things like somebody in danger, then it got expanded to the above. That's an example of the slide.

Is that ok with you?

They're weaker in cars than in houses.

Police can lie to suspects in order to obtain confessions.

The Patriot Act is patently unconstitutional to my mind, and yet it's there, and being used in all sorts of ways that deny protections to folks, even American citizens.

I'd say we've already gone too far in that direction, and that we should be reversing these trends, and certainly not going farther that way.

I didn't mean to suggest they were corrupt, simply that they're not right just because they believe something. They're human, and have their own biases and flaws.

The right way for this to go is for the police to gather evidence first (without violating anybody's rights), then bring them to trial, and then determine guilt.

You can't do it the other way around - I know he's guilty, so I'll just violate his rights.

What happens when they're wrong, and it was your house they broke into?

"Is that ok with you?"

Yes, it is. Though hearing a toilet flush through a closed home door is virtually impossible.

"They're weaker in cars than in houses."

No, they're not.

"Police can lie to suspects in order to obtain confessions."

Good. And rightfully so. Considering the fact that virtually every criminal will lie incessantly, even when confronted with damning evidence, the police should be able to mess w/ the suspects' mind in order to seek the truth. They just supposed to sit back and "converse" with these people like they're altar boys?

" simply that they're not right just because they believe something. They're human, and have their own biases and flaws."

These are our highly trained protectors. Nobody's perfect, but with reasonable knowledge of a situation I'm confident they'll make the right choices more often that not.

"What happens when they're wrong, and it was your house they broke into?"

I highly doubt that's ever going to happen. The odds are probably similar to winning the lottery.

Do you honestly think that this means homes can be entered at will by anyone off the street unless there is a sign posted saying "No trespassing?" A person is not "privileged" to enter a private home and needs no specific, additional notice to that effect.

Trust me, it is trespassing to enter a home without permission, even if the lack of permission is not explicitly stated.

Trespassing occurs at the entry point. It doesn't only become trespassing when the owner spots you and protests. An officer should definitely know she is not authorized or privileged to enter a private home.

Your list of options seemed to include only explicit notice, like a fence, a sign, or a verbal command seemed to leave out the basic point that private property automatically carries the lack of permission.

You're leaving out a key detail of this case. The man had closed the garage door, but the officer interrupted the closing. There are cases on this saying that cops can't prevent a homeowner from closing a door.

Of course all these cases would be fact- specific. Open areas of the home, like a driveway or sidewalk are generally available to people to walk on without risk of trespassing without more notice. But it's all within reason. My back yard isn't fenced and the patio furniture is pretty visible from the street. I don't have a sign, but you're still trespassing if you come sit on my hammock without my express permission.

This is where I said reasonableness comes into play for each factual scenario. Of course I don't object to the Fed Ex guy because reasonable people expect that delivering packages and knocking on doors are ok unless otherwise notified. Reasonable people, though, also understand that using someone else's unfenced yard is not.

Just as a reasonable person knows, or should know, they're in the wrong when they use any kind of force to prevent a homeowner from shutting them out.