Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent Wookie
I dont buy that for several reasons:
1) Obtain a warrant for what? They did not have reasonable grounds the any evidence of a crime would be in the house and further, they did not have reasonable grounds to even arrest Fowler at that point. Both are necessary for a warrant.
2) Attending Fowler's residence to conduct an investigation was valid. They did not know he was in the residence and upon opening the door Fowlers indictia of impairment was readily apparent through questions used to conduct the investigation.
|
I know what what your saying and I agree somewhat....but the police went to his house under the assumtion from the ex-wife that he was a) intoxicated and b) he was the one responsible for the hit and run.
Now as state there is common law that guides this -
(Under Common law there is a longstanding principle that people, including police officers, have impliedlicence to approach and knock on someone's door for the purpose of convenient communication with the occupant(s). If the police purpose is to communicate with the occupant(s), there is no search for constitutional purposes. However, if the police approach the residence to secure evidence against the occupant, then a search has taken place and reasonableness enquiry will be undertaken under S.8. Similarly, if the police have dual purpose in mind (communication with the occupant and secure evidence against the occupant), their conduct will constitute a search and S.8 is engaged.)
They pretty much knew that the suspect was going there because a) that is where is lives and b) that is where his ex-wife said he was going. So it is a little touchy.....
What if the police received a tip from his ex wife that he had a grow op in the house? They would most certainly obtain a warrant before arriving at the house to search it. The two are different but similar.