Invasion of privacy

[Rye Miles #13621]

https://www.rt.com/usa/491600-police-called-childs-virtual-classroom/

[Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062]

God help us if he gets his hands on a pop-tart ......... 

[Chantry]

I would be having a long talk with a lawyer about suing the school and the teacher and if possible would press criminal charges against the teacher.  

[Alpo]

Could be worse.

 

I remember, several years ago, where a school had issued all of its students laptop computers.

 

Because the school owned the computers they had the ability to remotely access the web cams. Some prevert in the school's hierarchy was going in at night, turning on the webcams of the computers that were in these middle school students' bedrooms, and recording these children undressing and getting ready for bed.

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

Say "No" when the police ask to search without a warrant.

 

And kill the video on your end for the on-line classes; audio still works, and your kid can still see the teacher.

 

LL

[Chief Rick]

My laptops have a piece of tape over the camera.

[Smoken D]

2 minutes ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Say "No" when the police ask to search without a warrant.

 

And kill the video on your end for the on-line classes; audio still works, and your kid can still see the teacher.

 

LL

 

As a once detective totally agree. Say no to the search and shut the door. A criminal investigation is no problem getting a warrant. Something like this the teacher will have to be called in for a formal statement along with the school principal and Superintendent of the School. Evidence, all kinds of paperwork then the search warrant forms presented to a prosecutor. Gonna be a lot of Pis*** off people at the teacher. Then the law suites will begin ending with the teacher, principal, and superintendent looking for new jobs and not in the teaching business. Then the kid will be going to the best private schools and Harvard or anywhere else he wants. The parents will live in a $1,000,000 home with fancy cars. And of course one BIG SMILING ATTORNEY as usual. 

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

11 minutes ago, Smoken D said:

 

As a once detective totally agree. Say no to the search and shut the door. A criminal investigation is no problem getting a warrant. Something like this the teacher will have to be called in for a formal statement along with the school principal and Superintendent of the School. Evidence, all kinds of paperwork then the search warrant forms presented to a prosecutor. Gonna be a lot of Pis*** off people at the teacher. Then the law suites will begin ending with the teacher, principal, and superintendent looking for new jobs and not in the teaching business. Then the kid will be going to the best private schools and Harvard or anywhere else he wants. The parents will live in a $1,000,000 home with fancy cars. And of course one BIG SMILING ATTORNEY as usual. 

 

The Constitutional prohibition against warrantless searches exists for good reasons.  If the police have probable cause, let them present it to a judge and get a warrant.  If they don't, there is no reason to let them shuffle around in your bedroom looking for something illegal.  If they go back to the school looking for affidavits in support of the warrant application, let the teacher and the administrator go on the record, under oath, about what they saw that caused such great concern.   Someone will end up looking silly, and it won't be you.

 

LL

 

[Chantry]

I'll also play Devil's Advocate.  I suspect the teacher and principal are required by law to report things like this either to law enforcement or Dept of Child Services (or your state's equivalent) .  If it had been an actual firearm, would our reactions be different?  While we are all responsible adults who would not leave a firearm out where a 12 year old can get to it, we also know there are plenty of people out there that are not responsible adults.

 

Link: https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-protective-services/reporting-suspected-child-abuse-or-neglect/ or possibly https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-protective-services/risk-of-harm/

 

On edit:  The more I research, the less likely I think anyone is going to be penalized for this and no, I am not a lawyer.

I suspect a strong argument can be made in court that the teacher felt the child to be in immediate danger based on her belief that the BB gun was a real firearm and that she was required to report that to the police.  The police in this case were acting more in the role of social workers from Child Services rather then law enforcement and may not have needed a warrant under the  Exigent Circumstances.  I suspect that they asked permission to enter the house and the mother gave consent since she felt she had done nothing wrong.

 

Link: https://www.sccgov.org/ssa/opp2/13_xp/13-5.html

 

Exigent Circumstances Link: https://www.sccgov.org/ssa/opp2/13_xp/13-3.html#what_are

 

[South-Eye Ned]

A lecture to the teacher from the police about frivolous reports would seem appropriate.  I’m inferring that despite not liking the police visit, the mother probably allowed the police in to conduct the search without a warrant.  I probably would as well.  I may have watched too many episodes of Law and Order to think that if the police have to get a warrant they will not be as respectful with your personal property when they get inside.

[J-BAR #18287]

Could the argument be made that if the kid had a gun available then he could protect himself from abuse?

 

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

No one will be penalized for anything. Chantry is spot on. The teacher saw what she thought was a gun out in the open and accessible by a child. There are laws against that. She called the police as she thought the child was in potential danger. The cops didn't need a warrant. A firearm where a child can access it and inflict harm on himself or others = Exigent Circumstances.

No law suit, no Harvard, no new house.

[LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L]

Been a cop for 36 years.  Just say no if they ask permission to search without a warrant.  They're not there to be your friend.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

You've got to realize that this is Baltimore too.  Different laws and expectations.  I had rifles and shotguns hanging on my bedroom wall when I was 12, but this is Georgia.  We can still buy guns and shoot them the same day with ammo we bought over the internet without the state's permission.  

[Smoken D]

37 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

No one will be penalized for anything. Chantry is spot on. The teacher saw what she thought was a gun out in the open and accessible by a child. There are laws against that. She called the police as she thought the child was in potential danger. The cops didn't need a warrant. A firearm where a child can access it and inflict harm on himself or others = Exigent Circumstances.

No law suit, no Harvard, no new house.

 

If she allowed them to come in. If not they most differently would have to get a warrant. Anyone can sue for anything and this would warrant a law suit. Cops come in my house when I say no without a warrant, there is going to be a problem.

[Buckshot Bob]

7 minutes ago, LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L said:

Been a cop for 36 years.  Just say no if they ask permission to search without a warrant.  They're not there to be your friend.

My little sister was a social worker then became a prosecuting attorney to try to do more , and is very pro law enforcement. She has always advised me the same as Nancy Regan . Just say no , and she adds no matter how trivial it seems or how much they threaten to inconvenience you . Just say no 

[Chantry]

4 minutes ago, Smoken D said:

 

If she allowed them to come in. If not they most differently would have to get a warrant. Anyone can sue for anything and this would warrant a law suit. Cops come in my house when I say no without a warrant, there is going to be a problem.

Under certain circumstances a warrant is NOT required to enter a home:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

9 minutes ago, Smoken D said:

 

If she allowed them to come in. If not they most differently would have to get a warrant. Anyone can sue for anything and this would warrant a law suit. Cops come in my house when I say no without a warrant, there is going to be a problem.

you need to read this. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances Cops had every right to enter the home with or without the owners permission. They use this all the time to bypass the need for a warrant. Courts uphold this all the time.

Kid around guns = kid at risk = gun unsecured = https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances. Using this as a reason to enter if the owner had refused she could have ended up in cuffs for obstruction.

[Smoken D]

4 minutes ago, Chantry said:

Under certain circumstances a warrant is NOT required to enter a home:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances

 

Of course when you are chasing a suspect or you know people are about to destroy important evidence to a major crime. But in this circumstance a most differently 'NO". Also for your info I taught search warrant for K.C.MO.P.D. Get a warrant.

[Rye Miles #13621]

7 minutes ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

you need to read this. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances Cops had every right to enter the home with or without the owners permission. They use this all the time to bypass the need for a warrant. Courts uphold this all the time.

Kid around guns = kid at risk = gun unsecured = https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances. Using this as a reason to enter if the owner had refused she could have ended up in cuffs for obstruction.

None of that happened  this case! 

[LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L]

18 minutes ago, Chantry said:

Under certain circumstances a warrant is NOT required to enter a home:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances

This case would NOT qualify as exigent circumstances.

[Chantry]

11 minutes ago, Smoken D said:

 

Of course when you are chasing a suspect or you know people are about to destroy important evidence to a major crime. But in this circumstance a most differently 'NO". Also for your info I taught search warrant for K.C.MO.P.D. Get a warrant.

I am unhappy about what happened in that news story.  But playing Devil's Advocate I stated that a strong argument can be made that the teacher felt the child was in danger because she thought the firearm was real and therefore required by law.  

 

Maybe this would have had a different outcome in Missouri, but Maryland and the other blue states in the Mid-Atlantic & the Northeast are not Missouri

 

 

[Chantry]

Just now, LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L said:

This case would NOT qualify as exigent circumstances.

Even if the firearm was believed to be real?

 

 

[LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L]

Just now, Chantry said:

Even if the firearm was believed to be real?

 

 

No.  There was no "hot pursuit", no evidence of imminent danger to life.  Even if it had been a real firearm, enough time had to have elapsed from when it was viewed until when the officers arrived that they could have and should have obtained a warrant.  

[Badlands Bob #61228]

There's been lots of case law on exigent circumstances.  It's constantly changing but in this case, it would not even come close to meeting the criteria.  If an officer is called to a domestic dispute and upon arriving at the front door, he sees the husband beating the wife with a table leg.  They can enter due to exigent circumstances.  If they are in a foot chase with a suspected armed robber and they see him go into a house, they can pursue into the house.  If it's just a drunk driver or some other misdemeanor offence, they are on shaky ground and our department's policy was to stop and get a search warrant.  Once the officer has made the scene safe, they cannot continue the search without a warrant.  

[Pat Riot]

One of the reasons that when I do a  tele-con I always pick my location very carefully.

[Chantry]

29 minutes ago, LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L said:

No.  There was no "hot pursuit", no evidence of imminent danger to life.  Even if it had been a real firearm, enough time had to have elapsed from when it was viewed until when the officers arrived that they could have and should have obtained a warrant.  

 

Ok, looks like I was wrong.  Moot point since the homeowner allowed the officers in without a warrant.

[Smoken D]

1 hour ago, Chantry said:

 

Ok, looks like I was wrong.  Moot point since the homeowner allowed the officers in without a warrant.

 

Case at hand on shaky grounds. Local shop and rob gets robbed. Me and partner high tail it and upon arrival find out, yep, been robbed which the witness said they went around the back of the store. Go around the back and it' snowing like heck. Man, they left tracks in the snow. Start following the tracks which of course goes to the local Section 19 apartments. By the time we get to the parking lot the suckers must have spotted us following their trail, so, the tracks suddenly go round and round in circle. I give up and just follow the outside of the circle and sure enough there's their tracks leading away from that circle. Follow till the end of an apartment section leading right up to the apartment in the center. Hot pursuit? Well maybe, I would think so, I could kick the door down and enter and maybe lose the case on illegal entry by one of those, you know, attorney's. Suspects aren't going anywhere, and have guns. Go busting in, someone gonna get hurt. Search Warrant would be best. As it turned out I just knocked on the door and granny answers. I explained what I had been doing and she says, "Wait here officer". She goes up stairs which a very loud commotion going on and a lot of banging on the wall. Kinda like head banging. She comes down with the two teenagers in one hand and the bag of money in the other. They were begging me to take them in and were impulsively admitting to robbing the store. She also handed me the gun. Youth unit notified, wagon responded, hocus pocus, 12th and Locust.

When this was all over there was around 6" of snow on the ground and still coming. All foot tracks were gone.

Could I have busted in on the hot pursuit basis. Probably, but no one was going anywhere. Witness could ID them just in case money flushed. This occurred in Jackson County, Missouri which just about any incident prosecutors want you to get a warrant. They don't like appeals or challenges. They want plea bargains.

This turned out to be all around good ending. Could have been a different story.

[Captain Bill Burt]

5 hours ago, Chantry said:

I'll also play Devil's Advocate.  I suspect the teacher and principal are required by law to report things like this either to law enforcement or Dept of Child Services (or your state's equivalent) .  If it had been an actual firearm, would our reactions be different?  While we are all responsible adults who would not leave a firearm out where a 12 year old can get to it, we also know there are plenty of people out there that are not responsible adults.

 

Link: https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-protective-services/reporting-suspected-child-abuse-or-neglect/ or possibly https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-protective-services/risk-of-harm/

 

On edit:  The more I research, the less likely I think anyone is going to be penalized for this and no, I am not a lawyer.

I suspect a strong argument can be made in court that the teacher felt the child to be in immediate danger based on her belief that the BB gun was a real firearm and that she was required to report that to the police.  The police in this case were acting more in the role of social workers from Child Services rather then law enforcement and may not have needed a warrant under the  Exigent Circumstances.  I suspect that they asked permission to enter the house and the mother gave consent since she felt she had done nothing wrong.

 

Link: https://www.sccgov.org/ssa/opp2/13_xp/13-5.html

 

Exigent Circumstances Link: https://www.sccgov.org/ssa/opp2/13_xp/13-3.html#what_are

 

That's not the argument the Principal is advancing.  He stated "just as (Sperry's son) cannot bring guns to school, he cannot bring them to virtual meetings as well and this is in the handbook."  So by his reasoning all school policies are extended into any of the child's environment that can be seen during virtual meetings.  If there's a picture of a gun, or a flag that isn't welcome, anything that wouldn't be allowed in school can not be around the child or visible during virtual meetings.

I think the bozo will lose that fight.

2 hours ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

you need to read this. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances Cops had every right to enter the home with or without the owners permission. They use this all the time to bypass the need for a warrant. Courts uphold this all the time.

Kid around guns = kid at risk = gun unsecured = https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances. Using this as a reason to enter if the owner had refused she could have ended up in cuffs for obstruction.

If they ask to search, they're not authorized to, or they wouldn't be asking.

[Pat Riot]

12 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

That's not the argument the Principal is advancing.  He stated "just as (Sperry's son) cannot bring guns to school, he cannot bring them to virtual meetings as well and this is in the handbook."  So by his reasoning all school policies are extended into any of the child's environment that can be seen during virtual meetings.  If there's a picture of a gun, or a flag that isn't welcome, anything that wouldn't be allowed in school can not be around the child or visible during virtual meetings.

 

More "Orwellian" Bull Shtuff!

[Chantry]

53 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

That's not the argument the Principal is advancing.  He stated "just as (Sperry's son) cannot bring guns to school, he cannot bring them to virtual meetings as well and this is in the handbook."  So by his reasoning all school policies are extended into any of the child's environment that can be seen during virtual meetings.  If there's a picture of a gun, or a flag that isn't welcome, anything that wouldn't be allowed in school can not be around the child or visible during virtual meetings.

I think the bozo will lose that fight.

 

 

Not that I disagree with you, but that does depend on both the principal telling the truth and the reporter reporting it accurately.   The pile of steaming excrement he offered as a reason MIGHT get him a slap on the wrist from his boss.  I think whatever the real reason (Guns are bad & I don't like gun owners) was would have opened him and the school system to a lawsuit.   From the principal's perspective it far better to look like a moron versus getting sued or fired.  But perhaps I'm too cynical.

 

On edit:  I'm curious what the principal said when he called the police and whether he dialed a non-emergency or 911

 

 

[bgavin]

Question:  does this also apply to vehicle searches?

For example:
I am on my way to the range and get pulled over for a speeding ticket.
The officer wants to search my car.
I tell him, "Not without a warrant."

He threatens to haul me into the station to conduct the search.
When this happened to me in NV while my Dad was dying, I let him search the truck for expediency.
The dog found nothing, cuz I'm not a drug runner... also carried a security clearance at the time.

Today, I would stand fast, make him get his watch commander out to the street, or whatever.

Thoughts?

[Captain Bill Burt]

1 minute ago, bgavin said:

Question:  does this also apply to vehicle searches?

For example:
I am on my way to range and get pulled over for a speeding ticket.
The officer wants to search my car.
I tell him, "Not without a warrant."

He threatens to haul me into the station to conduct the search.
When this happened to me in NV while my Dad was dying, I let him search the truck.

Today, I would stand fast, make him get his watch command out to the street, or whatever.

Thoughts?

My response is pretty standard.  If you're asking, the answer is no. Anything beyond that will likely be videoed, by me.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

The officer must have probable cause to search a vehicle.  This probable cause will be documented in a report and argued endlessly in court.  If you give voluntary consent, then all bets are off, however if he threatened you then the consent would not be valid.  Threatening to haul you to the station to conduct a search of your vehicle and wasting lots of your time is a threat.  Then there is inventory of a vehicle subject to impound which is a whole other issue.  Then there is the "free air" dog sniff stuff.  This search and seizure stuff goes on and on.

[Alpo]

1991. Friend of mine - let's call him Leadfoot - got pulled on i-95 in South Carolina. Probably doing 95.

 

They were happy. Pickup truck, with a covered load, Florida plates, cellular antenna (cell phones were kind of rare in 1991), speeding North on i-95. They had a drug runner.

 

So they asked if they could look at his load. He told them no. They told him that they would just keep him there until the dog showed up, and when the dog alerted they would have probable cause to search, and they would find the drugs, so things would go much better for him if he just admitted it and let them look.

 

He told them to pound sand.

 

Hour and a half later the K-9 unit shows. The dog walks around the truck a couple of times, looks up at his handler and says, "There ain't nothing here. Isn't it your day to buy lunch?"

 

The original cops could not understand. "If you didn't have anything illegal back there, why wouldn't you let us look?"

 

He told them that it was none of their damn business what he had in his truck.

 

Since they could not arrest him for drugs, they did a thorough safety inspection of his truck, and a side from the excessive speed he was also ticketed for the license plate light with blown and the windshield wipers were worn.

 

I believe that crime is known as pissing off cop.