Gates Basics

[@juliewoods6534]

Very informative. One takeaway is the case a federal one or a state one where the state can demand more. Some points from years of experience as a federal agent on how the officer could have given less mud for the defense to throw on the barn wall. I would have contacted a postal inspector to determine who received mail at that address. Found out whose name the utilities were in. I would have asked FLE to assist in surveillance if the vehicle. Just a guess but the most likely traveled the I-95 corridor, a well-known drug traffic route. I would bet that they could not drive 22 hours without making a traffic violation. Since the letter came from an alleged anonymous source the judge could not use the reliability of the source. So, I imagine the track record of the officer came into play. The signature of the letter writer makes my investigative antenna stick out. "Hugs and Kisses?" Gimme a break. If I were a defense attorney, but I am not, nor would ever be, I would have asked in the suppression had a similar signed anonymous letter ever been received by the agency. Just some ideas from a long time law enforcement practitioner with a 100% arrest/conviction rate with only once case going to trial who has been the Affiant to 100s of Search Warrant Affidavits.

[@2senseentertainment985]

I didn't finish watching the video yet, but I'm sure that it may not get into 9-1-1 calls. What is the standard for 9-1-1 calls?

[@jmacpi]

Not sure if you have found your answer yet, what exactly are you looking for in reference to 911 calls?

[@2senseentertainment985]

+jmacpi let's say there's a 911 call by mistake or accident. or even a call from a neighbor who hears shouting and I don't want the police to come because it's my residence. anything really in the fact that there is no emergency

[@jmacpi]

That could go in 2 directions:
1) the LE response would be a matter considered acting "In Good Faith". the responding officers cannot know if the call was a mistake/accident. They have to act in good faith that the call is real.
For example, neighbors hear some yelling (sounds like arguing a crash and some more yelling), they call 911. The responding LEOs arrive to potential fight and/or domestic violence and they respond accordingly. When they get there, they find that the couple was arguing (and yelling) and see a broken vase on the floor. On this particular call there's no evidence or claims of a battery or even a crime (in general, it's not illegal to break your own stuff). Yes, the LEOs responded and even encroached on the couple's 4th amendment rights, but since they acted "In Good Faith" because of the call, their actions would be considered appropriate and legal.
Taking that one step further with the same scenario. Say the responding LEOs arrive and during the investigation, they see a crack pipe and several rocks of what appears to be crack cocaine on the coffee table. Because they were acting In Good Faith on the call (Plain View Doctrine also kicks in on this example), then their actions in reference to the drugs and paraphernalia would be appropriate and legal.
2) Malicious 911 call (happens a lot), although the LEOs act "In Good Faith", doesn't mean the incident won't generate a complaint, particularly if it can be shown that the person making the 911 call was acting out of Malice or to Harass. That would have to be demonstrated against the 911 caller. Charges of Harassment, False reports, misuse of 911 system, etc. could be brought upon the call taker.
Little long winded, let me know if that answered what you were looking for.

[@2senseentertainment985]

jmacpi no it pretty much sums it up. I was aware of the plain view doctrine but I guess good faith would fall under a reasonable search and seizure. I'm also curious about the extent of the search. Let's say they act in good faith and enter the home and everything appears normal but then continue to go room to room searching the house. At what point does it become an overreach of authority? I would imagine if any criminal charges were brought about from a situation like that, let's say they find a room with some pot plants, that it would be addressed with a probable cause hearing, but at what point does the homeowner have the right to say, okay, nothing is going on, please leave.

[@jmacpi]

The Domestic Violence example works best here since in most jurisdictions a LEO is able to enter the home without a warrant (due to emergency/exigent circumstances, one of the warrantless search justifications).
The DV call would allow the officers to enter, but not necessarily search through the home. They would have to articulate why they believed there were others in the home (such as kids toys). The justification would be checking for other victims/suspects (emergency/exigent circumstances).