The cops said public service. But he said wait a minute.

Just want to add my voice to Bri who offered props to Unbelievable for that fine piece of legal research. As Unbelievable pointed out, there was no 4th amendment violation in this matter. The 'search', if you even want to call it that, had a sound legal foundation, and nothing was seized.

And on the practical level, come on! The police did nothing more than a good neighbor would be expected to have done. It was the right thing under the circumstances.

It may be stoopid to leave your doors unlocked, open, etc. But it is NOT up to the police to tell anyone how to live! Both parties messed up.

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
The right to privacy includes the right to leave your windows open and your doors unlocked.
You dont have a right to police protection, but you do have (or used to have) the right to protect your propety from intruders.....uniformed or not!
Why have so many sacrificed freedom for protection?

What 'right' are you reffering too. You have a right to privacy of beliefs (1st amendment), right to privacy against using your home to house soldiers,(3rd amendment), right agains illegal search and seizure (4th amendment, and as stated previously does not apply due to extigent circumstance clause), and the right to not self incriminate yourself,(5th amendment). but their is no right to privacy or right to protect your property from inruders. their may be laws in place to afford you certain privacy and self protection but no right.

And in MN you do not have a right to protect your property with great bodily harm or death. You can only cause those two if you are protecting yourself. In MN if you are able to escape your property without causing harm to the intruder, you are to do so. Now dont get me wrong, I dont agree with that one, but thats the way MN works.

John Gage wrote:

<quoted text>
My point is that the police do not have a right to simply enter someone's house to search for illegal activity. However, to check on someone's well being is not a search for illegal activity.
Yes..if someone was doing something illegally like producing meth, I would defend their 4th amendment rights. I don't agree with the KKK or Nazi's but I would defend their right to free speech also.

You are correct. And Mn Officers know this. If durring one of the excigent circumstances, or others such as medicals, fires, stuff like that, and officers saw this stuff in 'plain view', they would not arrest you. they would stop, secure the property and speak with a judge about a warrant. and the judge would decide what rights are afforded to the person and what circumstances exist.

Not to mention, I cant count the number of diabetics, heart attacks or fallen old people that have been found this way. And if your against this, you better not have a security system on your home. Becouse if the police get an alarm call to your residence, they check the doors, and if they find one open they will look inside for intruders. So dont leave your dirty underware hanging on the door knob!!

Sorry about the trifecta above. It was a Topix screw-up.

I recently had a similar problem with a police chief in my garage I objected to the violation of the 4th Amendment he laughed. What gives these turkeys the right to violate our rights. There... are serious safety issues here. cop mentality needs to be reviewed.I also had a problem with these Lakeville rouges they implied I robbed a bank They brought a squad of goons to my home and confronted me in my driveway while the neighbors watched.

Obviously no one has watched the news report where the guy stated he doesn't drink and that there was nothing to hide but he forgot to shut his garage door. The kids were fine and were not in danger. The cops lied to the media I think to cover their own wrong doing! I hope this guy does sue and I hope he gets what he wants accomplished out of the deal! He did nothing worng!

The Truth you are an idiot! If you sent the kids to live with their mother she would just drag them from boyfriend's house to boyfriend's house as she switches men every year or two and what kind of danger are the kids in then? Stop commenting about things you don't understand.

Frustrated wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree with your statement that the 'kids were in danger.' We do not know that, his address, his neighborbood, etc. An unlocked door does not merit someone branding him the equivalent of keeping kids in unsanitary conditions, away from school, medical treatment, etc. Stupid? Perhaps in parts of Minneapolis or Detroit, yes. But that is his choice as a parent.

C'mon, the kids would not go tell dad the cops were there. What would be reason enough to get his attention then? I hope child protection has had a look at this situation...
If the police had not investigated and there was a problem, they would be maligned worse than they are being now.
Not everything is a blooming catastrophe people, live and learn!

I don't doubt that the intentions of the police officers were good. But Their actions were unlawful in my mind. Using their reasoning they will be able to enter a home at any time they feel something is wrong. While this will once in a while be very helpful. I am willing to take the risk that the police won't be entering my home when I need them to ensure that my home is MY property.

I believe they meant well, but there are laws and even the enforcers need to follow them.

"But police can risk their lives by entering homes at night, said Charles Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota. Authorities should enter a home only when they are chasing a suspect or have a search warrant."

This is just plain wrong.

Police can enter your home under the following circumstances:

1. With consent of the homeowner.
2. In fresh pursuit of a fleeing suspect.
3. With a search warrant or a arrest warrant (if it is known the person with the arrest warrant is in the house).
4. Exigent circumstances.

#4 is what's under fire in this situation. If the police had a good faith basis to believe there were exigent circumstances when the incident was occurring, they did the right thing. I have seen nothing that says the police had malicious intent or entered the house for a reason other that concern for the welfare of the people inside. If anyone against what the police did has some evidence of this, now is the time to present it.

Otherwise, be thankful you have police officers that assertively do their jobs.(There are many who don't, the circus this situation has blown up into is a prime example of why).

He wants a public hearing-not looking for a law suit. If the city wont give him one, then thier position is they will violate peoples rights at will. If he only wanted money he would have sued- not demanded a public hearing. At a public hearing THE PUBLIC can come voice thier opinion. I think hes a smart guy, he wants to discuss this with the government and draw boundries. This is how confilcist should be used as opportunities to work better with our public employees.

I really don't see how these kids where in any real danger? Sure, criticize this poor guy for leaving his garage door open at night because I am sure that you've never forgot to lock that window or deadbolt the backdoor. People are acting like this poor guy left his kids alone with guns, drugs and hookers while he was away in Vegas.

An open door does not give anyone the right to enter my home. Not answering the door in the middle of the night is also not a reason to enter a home; who answers their door at 3am anyways? They "police" officers are lucky they didn't get shot.

After thinking about this whole situation, the police probably put the kids in more danger than the father did by leaving the garage door open. What if the father decided to defend his family and his home and the children were hit by stray bullets?

It seems that the majority of people commenting on this forum are COMPLETELY missing the topic!

You folks are bantering back and forth about this man's parenting skills, charging him with neglect, etc., but that's not what this issue is about.

We're talking about the basic rights of an American citizen. We are granted certain freedoms that should never be infringed upon.

We're talking about a citizen's right to privacy and the police state (err..department) who infringed upon that right.

The police cite the fact that they were "investigating."
- Did they try to call the phone in the house before entering?
- Did they ring the doorbell repeatedly until someone answered the door?
- Did they use their megaphone or flashing lights to get the attention of the homeowner?

NO!

What if you were in his shoes? Would you be so willing to let the lawmen overstep your rights?

Let me give you a few possible scenarios:
- You're garage door is open. You're making love with you wife upstairs and the police walk right into you bedroom while you're in the act. Would YOU feel violated?
- Your front door and windows are open because your wife is airing out the house. She walks out from the laundry room, half-dressed, and there are the police standing in your kitchen, eye-balling your wife.

You people are so willing to give away your freedoms when some cop stands up shouting "What IF...?" However, no one is willing to analyze the root issue and shout, "What DID happen?"

We are granted certain rights/freedoms. Sometimes, those freedoms will inadvertently allow bad things to happen. However, that doesn't give any the right to rescind those freedoms.

That man also had another right - the right to bare arms. If an intruder had indeed come in, he could have protected himself and his children. Instead of sheepishly relying on the police state to do him a "favor".

Do you know that each time the police state infringes upon a right/freedom and gets away with it, it gives them one more reason to continue down this path?

Wake up people. Start tackling the REAL issues.

John Gage wrote:

<quoted text>
My point is that the police do not have a right to simply enter someone's house to search for illegal activity. However, to check on someone's well being is not a search for illegal activity.
Yes..if someone was doing something illegally like producing meth, I would defend their 4th amendment rights. I don't agree with the KKK or Nazi's but I would defend their right to free speech also.

At what point would you draw the line on when a police officer can enter your home without permission. Can a cop walk into your home at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon merely to check to see if everyone is okay? What about 6:00pm, 9:00pm, 11:00pm, 1:00am, or 6:00am?

Had something happened in that house and it was not discovered until the following morning and the cops were there that night and did not enter, everyone would be blaming the cops. Either way people will find fault. I would appreciate it if the cops saw something out of sorts at my house and checked it out.

Enigma Solution wrote:

<quoted text>
At what point would you draw the line on when a police officer can enter your home without permission. Can a cop walk into your home at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon merely to check to see if everyone is okay? What about 6:00pm, 9:00pm, 11:00pm, 1:00am, or 6:00am?

I am going to trust the officer's judgement to determine if it is appropriate to go into someone's house to check on them.
It is easy for everyone to second guess now because nothing was found to be wrong. Had they found something wrong, this would not be an issue.

Alex wrote:

In the days when families wanted to feel safe and appreciated such things as "checks"... the mail carriers would also watch out for their people. If they saw the mail bunch up, they knocked and checked on them. If the door was open, they came in and made sure everybody was okay. Those days of Good Samaritan are gone. SUE 'em! Sue 'em! How dare they care about me!!!

No kidding, everyone wants a big pay day these days. I am not sure if it was right or wrong - I see valid points in quite a few posts. However, the police were not trying to look for illegal activity. They were only checking on the welfare of the occupants of the house. I do not see a problem with that. If they knocked first, I don't know, because I had the police knock on my door at 2am and they used their flashlights to knock and I heard it, so who knows, but I agree with Alex, no one can believe that anyone can care about strangers, this is why old ladies are found dead after 2 months on a toilet, or dead for days in their apartments etc...we need to have more compasion for our neighbors, we need to watch out for each other. So I say if this guy is only concerned with our rights, then there will not be a lawsuit to follow....we will see!

Dan the Legal Man wrote:

<quoted text>
Mmmmmm.......
How about the Fourth Amemdment of the Constitution of the United States of America? I think that is the violation he specifically stated.

There was no search. There was no seizure of any property. Where is the fourth amendment violation? If they had found, say, a bag of pot on the nightstand and arrested him, then there would have been a fourth amendment violation because they had no probable cause to suspect that he had it in his home, and no reason, or warrant, to search for it. Did they really need probable cause in this situation since they were not going in after the guy who was sleeping? He sounds like a real jerk if the kids were 'too scared to wake him'.

If these cops had wanted to be a-holes, they would have arrested him for endangerment or neglect and Ol' Backstrom would have thrown the book at him and made a new media circus to get himself more publicity.(I'm surprised that he is not looking into charges based on the overwhelming fear the kids claim to have, it would be right up his alley) They did none of the above. Quit your whining about violation of rights. The guy also had a right to expect the police department to 'Protect' his safety, hence the 'Protect and Serve' slogan on the car door. They actually lived up to that and now everyone wants their head on a platter. And we wonder why cops get bad attitudes.

Any 'righties' complaining here: You have no room to complain. NONE! You have put this country in a spot where this kind of story could become the norm, but with a much different ending. So far, though, the cops aren't wearing brown shirts and jackboots and rousting people in the middle of the night for their political views. That will come after 'Little Georgie' declares martial law, dissolves congress and formally suspends the constitution as well as the election.