When the cops show up at your door what do you do? ~Personal Experiences Wanted~

[jimbroker]

We have been discussing how to/if you should answer the door for the cops in the "Methods that landlords and cops use to check up on you". I contend that it is better to just ignore the them altogether whereas others think it is a good idea to talk to them and to alleviate their suspicion. Here in the US, they can not enter your place without a warrant (or landlord's permission). I have never had the police at my door when I was growing but I have had them at the door for other reasons (loud parties, drug dealing) at my friends' houses. They have always just not answered the door and the police go away. Growing is a different situation.

What personal experiences have you had with the police at your or your friends' door for growing?

Be sure to mention the amount of plants in your grow and what country you are in as the advice might be situationally dependent.

 

[Guest]

in my opinion if cops in the US are really interested in you they are not going to tip there hand by coming to your door and asking you questions....they will set up surveillance, tap your phones(which is extremely easy for them to do these days with patriot act) and watch you for a number of weeks or months and possibly even years if your a big fish with a lot going on

Another story.....about 7 years ago i had a 21st b-day party for my little bro...there was probably 50 people there at any one time with people coming and going....i guess the neighbors got sick of the noise and called the cops...anyway cops show up, start ask for everyone id and unfortunately there are about 5 people there that were underage....now there was a lot of herb being smoked and if definitely reeked but bongs and pipes were luckily hidden before they got to the door...oh yeah and it was summer time so all the windows and doors were open....but the cops did not even think about coming in the house....they just stood outside the door and ask everyone that was inside to come outside and show id.....every that was of age continued to party and i explained to them it was a 21st b-day party and i really didn't know everyone that was there..i was very calm and relaxed and treated them with respect (and i think that is key whenever dealing with any cops in any situation)..anyway they issued the people who were under 21 tickets, told me to keep it down for the rest of the night, and left....point is they could have made up plenty of reasons to come into my house but the didn't because cops have to be extremely careful of breaking laws themselves when they enter someone house...thus making anything they would find without a warrant not admissible in court

i was not growing at this house but had plenty there i could go to jail for, for a long time...but before the party and had removed all my cash/stash and put it at my buddies house, just in case something like this happened...i do this every time i have a party, large or small

 

[British_Bulldog]

Hi jimbroker and ThirdEye,

When someone grasses you up for growing and the police come around without a warrant, it's how you behave at that moment that dictates your future basically.

Growing weed and having a party are completely different matters, and as such should be treated very differently too.

Growing is an organised and dedicated illegal activity, and another party is just run-of-the-mill to cops....cops who want to get as much brownie points down at the station as possible, and busting a professional, or even serious amateur, grower is a big deal for them, and also goes in the local (/national) press.

BTW: ThirdEye - if they do do surveillance, which isn't always due to resources, and come up with nothing, then ultimately it comes down to a Knock and Talk.


Think smart and stay safe.


Peace

 

[British_Bulldog]

Knock and Talk info from: http://www.mobar.org/journal/1999/janfeb/swingle.htm


"Knock and talk" consent searches are popular with law enforcement officers because they save the time and trouble of securing a search warrant from a judge. While the potential for abuse is apparent, the determination whether a particular "knock and talk" search is legal involves nothing more than the application of well-established Fourth Amendment principles.


Introduction

Prior to 1991, no appellate case ever used the phrase "knock and talk" in reference to a consent search of a home.4 Since then, the use of this new shorthand description for a long-established police investigative technique has burst across the United States, not only in police training rooms, but also in judicial opinions. The catchy phrase has now appeared in no less than 46 appellate decisions, some reported,5 some not,6 including one 1998 Western District of Missouri case.7 Prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys have been uncertain how to properly analyze "knock and talk" searches, perhaps precisely because they come packaged under a sporty new name. Actually, the determination whether a particular "knock and talk" search is constitutional involves nothing more than the application of well-established Fourth Amendment principles pertaining to consent searches.8

The typical "knock and talk" simply involves police officers marching up to someone's front door, knocking, and requesting consent to search the home. A good description of the procedure was recently articulated by the North Carolina Supreme Court:

The "knock and talk" procedure is a tactic used by law enforcement . . . when they get information that a certain person has drugs in a residence but the officers don't have probable cause for a search warrant. The officers then proceed to the residence, knock on the door, and ask to be admitted inside. Thereafter gaining entry, the officers inform the person that they're investigating information that drugs are in the house. The officers then ask for permission to search and apparently are successful in many cases in getting the occupant's "apparent consent."9

Other cases provide similar definitions.10 The scenario comes up most often when an anonymous source tips off police that drugs are being sold out of a particular house and the officers are either unable or unwilling to take the steps necessary to sufficiently corroborate the tip to establish probable cause.11 Sometimes, even when consent is not given, additional information obtained during the "knock and talk" can subsequently lead to the issuance of a search warrant12 or provide exigent circumstances for a warrantless search.13

Lack of Search Warrant or Probable Cause

"Knock and talk" cases send up red flags for many criminal practitioners because they involve searches of citizens' homes without either search warrants or probable cause. Such a procedure strikes many as being at odds with the cardinal principles of Fourth Amendment law that "physical entrance into the home of another without a warrant is the chief evil the Fourth Amendment has sought to alleviate"14 and that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.15 Indeed, for Fourth Amendment purposes, a man's home is his castle.16 How is it, then, that this warrantless search of the castle is permitted? The answer lies in the development of the law of consent searches.

Consent has long been recognized as one of many exceptions to the search warrant requirement.17 In fact, "[a]fter stop and frisk, . . . consent searches are the most prevalent type of warrantless search arising in Fourth Amendment case law."18 It is important to realize, however, that consent is more than just another search warrant exception; it is also a waiver of the necessity of having probable cause for the search.19 A quarter century ago the United States Supreme Court instructed:

In situations where the police have some evidence of illicit activity, but lack probable cause to arrest or search, a search authorized by a valid consent may be the only means of obtaining important and reliable evidence . . . And in those cases where there is probable cause to arrest or search, but where the police lack a warrant, a consent may still be valuable. If the search is conducted and proves fruitless, that in itself may convince the police that an arrest with its possible stigma and embarrassment is unnecessary, or that a far more extensive search pursuant to a warrant is not justified. In short, a search pursuant to consent may result in considerably less inconvenience for the subject of the search, and, properly conducted, is a constitutionally permissible and wholly legitimate aspect of effective police activity.


* * *

Consent searches are part of the standard investigatory techniques of law enforcement agencies. They normally occur on the highway, or in a person's home or office, and under informal and unstructured conditions. The circumstances that prompt the initial request to search may develop quickly or be a logical extension of investigative police questioning.20

When police utilize a "knock and talk" procedure, whether as a spur of the moment response to an anonymous tip or the final culmination of a long but unsuccessful effort to develop probable cause for a search warrant, they are merely asking for permission to search a person's home, recognizing and risking that a refusal would not only alert the suspect that he is being watched but would quite likely leave the police empty-handed.

When the prosecution seeks to justify any warrantless search under the consent exception, the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution to show by a preponderance of evidence that the consent was freely and voluntarily given.21 The question whether a consent to search was "voluntary" is an issue of fact to be determined from the "totality of all the circumstances."22 Traditional factors in the totality of circumstances inquiry include: (1) whether the person was in custody when the request was made;23 (2) the number of officers present;24 (3) the degree to which the officers emphasized their authority;25 (4) whether weapons were displayed;26 (5) whether there was any fraud on the part of the officers;27 (6) the acts and statements of the person consenting,28 including his state of intoxication;29 (7) the age, intelligence and education of the suspect;30 (8) the length of the questioning;31 (9) the use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep;32 and (10) whether the person was advised of his or her right to refuse consent.33 No single factor will control the finding of voluntariness.34

The fact that the police lack probable cause when they come knocking at the suspect's door is not part of the voluntariness question calculus. Police are not required to have probable cause before approaching someone to ask for consent to search so long as a reasonable person would realize that he or she could refuse to give it.35 Whether the request is made in a public place like an airport,36 bus station,37 or highway,38 or whether it is made after knocking upon the door of a suspect's home,39 police officers with legitimate business may enter areas which are impliedly open to the public40 and are permitted the same license to intrude as a reasonably respectful citizen.41 For example, officers going around to knock on a side door after receiving no response to their knocks at the front door may properly glance into an open garbage can as they pass it since "a police officer who approaches a common access route may do so with his eyes open."42 If the side or back door were set up in such a way so as not to be generally open to the public, however, it would be improper for the officers to approach that particular door; any items spotted while in that area would not be considered to be in plain view.43 Likewise, officers who knock on a door at midnight and immediately brush past the person who opens it without obtaining permission to enter, and who are specifically told they do not have consent to search, may not use what they spot in plain view in a subsequent search warrant application.44 A voluntary consent given after the unlawful entry will not necessarily be ruled invalid, though.45

"Knock and talk" searches have proven to be an effective law enforcement tool. The suspect will voluntarily consent in a surprisingly large number of cases. One Texas detective recently testified that he has almost never been refused when using his "knock and talk" technique.46 Its very success is a fact detractors cite to argue the inherent coercion of a "knock and talk,"47 asserting that most people would not question the absence of a search warrant either because they did not know a warrant was required or because they were "too stunned by the circumstances to make a reasoned decision about whether or not to consent to a warrantless search."48

Any of several issues common to other types of consent cases can arise in a "knock and talk" case.

Proof of What Was Said

The exact wording used by the officer and the suspect is often of crucial importance in determining whether consent was given and the scope of that consent. Much time and effort is frequently expended trying to prove precisely what was said. A "knock and talk" done correctly usually involves an officer specifically telling a suspect that police are investigating possible criminal activity and unambiguously asking for consent to search the residence.49 Written consent forms are often used.50 When at all possible, law enforcement officers should utilize tape-recorders when conducting "knock and talk" searches. The prosecution, faced with the burden of proof, will sometimes lose swearing matches if the defendant claims the magic words weren't said.51 As shown recently by the Supreme Court in Ohio v. Robinette,52 the prosecution's burden of proof is much more easily met in consent cases when a recording preserves the conversation verbatim for the trier-of-fact. For example, a recent "knock and talk" case in which officers used a hidden microphone to record the consent transformed what might otherwise have been a hotly contested swearing match into a brief appellate decision affirming the search while quoting the consent word-for-word and declaring that a published decision would have no precedential value.53

Show of Police Authority

Police officers must be careful when choosing their words to make it clear that they are only asking for permission to enter, not demanding it. If police pound loudly on the door and order the occupant to let them in, they will not be able to make a lawful seizure of any evidence spotted in plain view when the door is opened since a person has not voluntarily consented to a public viewing of the inside of his home when he is merely complying with a police demand and show of official authority.54

Scope of Search

The scope of a consent search may be limited by the wording used either by the officer or the suspect. The standard is one of objective reasonableness: what would the typical reasonable person would have understood by the exchange between the officer and the subject of the search.55 In a "knock and talk" where the officers make it clear they are looking for drugs and the suspect responds with a general consent that they can come in and look around because he has nothing to hide, the scope of the search includes "any place in which drugs could be hidden," including the interior of a microwave oven."56 Conversely, if the consent is limited to one particular room, the officers are bound by the limits of that consent.

Termination of Consent

The party giving consent to search may terminate that consent at any time.57 In United States v. Dichiarinte,58 the suspect saw that the search to which he had given consent had expanded beyond simply looking for drugs -- the officers were rummaging through his personal papers and tax files. He announced, "The search is over. I am calling off the search." Quite properly, all evidence found after Dichiarinte withdrew his consent was later suppressed. Of course, had the police found incriminating evidence before consent was withdrawn, they could have arrested the suspect and searched the immediate area around him incident to that arrest, and later applied for a search warrant to conduct a more thorough and extensive search of the entire home.59

Threat to Obtain Search Warrant

Without question, a false claim by police officers that they have a search warrant when they really do not renders any consent involuntary.60 A more difficult issue is presented when the officers conducting the "knock and talk" are asked by the suspect, "Will you get a search warrant if I refuse?" Formulating an answer to that question is risky business. Some courts have said that consent is not voluntary if police officers answering the question make no distinction between seeking a search warrant and obtaining one.61 The Eighth Circuit generally holds that consent given in response to a threat to seek a warrant is voluntary,62 maintaining that the threat to obtain a search warrant is "only one factor in the totality of the circumstances inquiry."63 When officers go beyond merely telling a suspect that they will apply for a warrant by adding that if they seek a warrant they will be taking him to a holding cell or detaining him at his home in the meantime, those additional comments may slam the door of consent in the faces of the officers.64

False Statements

False statements or misrepresentations by police officers may or may not affect the voluntariness of consent. Lies as to the identity of the officers will not generally affect the consent. An undercover officer may falsely claim he is a drug customer wanting to come into the drug dealer's home to buy narcotics without affecting the voluntariness of the consent to enter the premises.65 Likewise, an undercover officer may obtain valid consensual entry into a suspect's home by falsely claiming she has car trouble and needs to use his telephone.66 False statements as to the scope, nature or purpose of the search can at times render a consent invalid, though. When a state trooper misleads a motorist by asking to "peek inside" the vehicle when he really intends a full search, the consent will be held invalid.67 When police falsely tell a suspect they want to inspect her home because she is a crime victim but really intend to look for marijuana, her consent will be found involuntary.68 On the other hand, an officer's request to examine defendant's shotgun on the ruse that he wants to verify whether it might have been used in a robbery, when his real purpose is to catch the defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm, is a consensual search if the defendant is dumb enough to fetch it for him.69

Miranda Warnings

It has been held that an officer conducting a "knock and talk" need not give Miranda warnings when asking for permission to search a home since the doorway conversation is not custodial interrogation.70 Nor under federal law must officers specifically warn the suspect of any right to refuse the consent.71 Missouri follows federal law for Fourth Amendment purposes.72 At least one state, though, has provided that its own constitution provides a greater level of privacy protection and requires police officers doing "knock and talks" to specifically inform targets that they have the right to refuse consent.73

Third Party Consent

In order for a consent to be valid, it must have been given by a person with the authority to give consent to search the premises, or at least by someone with apparent authority to consent to the search.74 Thus, police conducting a "knock and talk" cannot obtain a valid consent from a man whose only connection to the premises is that he lives up the street and had just stopped by.75

Exigent Circumstances

Officers conducting a "knock and talk" may end up finding themselves in a situation where exigent circumstances allow them to enter the house warrantlessly to prevent the destruction of evidence.76 For instance, police officers responding to a call about a suspected methamphetamine laboratory who are met at the door by an overpowering chemical smell, together with a man whose hands are stained with red phosphorous and who is carrying a hot plate, who tries to slam the door in their faces, may pursue the man into the house.77 Likewise, police officers approaching a house for a "knock and talk" who glimpse through a window a group of men sitting at a table admiring a mound of white powder, foil wrappers and a handgun, may immediately enter the house warrantlessly once the men spot the officers and begin fleeing from the room.78 In such situations, exigent circumstances make it proper for the police to enter the premises, conduct a limited protective sweep, secure the scene, and apply for a search warrant for a more extensive search.79 Similarly, when police are conducting a "knock and talk" for drugs at a back door open to the public, and notice a man carrying a package sneaking out the front door, they have reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop of that man.80 It has also been held that under the public safety exception to the requirement for Miranda warnings, an officer who walks up to a house to conduct a "knock and talk" and smells an overwhelming odor of ammonia and finds himself standing in a puddle of unknown liquid may ask the occupant of the house whether a fire hazard exists upon the premises and exactly what substance the officer has all over his shoes.81 At least one jurisdiction holds, nevertheless, that exigent circumstances do not allow police to kick in the door of a person who denies them entry on a "knock and talk" merely because he closed a shade on the door and was heard running away from the door (presumably to flush his drugs down a toilet) since "a warrantless entry of a house by law enforcement authorities, even based upon probable cause, cannot be justified by exigent circumstances of their own making."82

Conclusion

Although the phrase "knock and talk" was not used in any Missouri appellate case until 1998,83 the procedure was upheld by Missouri courts years before it acquired its newfangled name.84 By whatever label, a consent search of a home will continue to be a frequently utilized police procedure and one of the most often litigated suppression issues. All criminal practitioners need to be prepared to recognize and vigorously argue the Fourth Amendment issues inevitably presented in the wake of the dreaded knock upon the door.

 

[British_Bulldog]

Also:

“Knock and talk” is a routine used by the police during drug busts. In a “knock and talk,” the police approach a house or apartment in which they suspect drug dealing is going on. They listen outside the door for a short period of time, then they knock on the door in an attempt to persuade the occupants to give them permission to enter. If the consent is forthcoming, they enter and interview the occupants; if not, they try to see from their vantage point at the door whether drugs or drug paraphernalia are in plain view. If they are, they make a warrantless entry. Thus, the “knock and talk” does not require the issuance of a warrant."

http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Police/Pol_knocktalk.html



NOTE: if they "smell MJ" that's also a green light for a warrantless entry

 

[British_Bulldog]

And this entitled "Watch out for knock and talks":

"A knock-and-talk search works like this: Police officers go to the door of a residence in which they suspect illegal activity is occurring. They knock, introduce themselves as a police officer, and ask to come in and talk. If the resident says yes, they enter the home and look around for signs of drugs or illegal alcohol. If they see any, they detain the resident(s) in the dwelling while calling for a warrant that allow them to legally search for the evidence they saw during the visit.

Not only is the technique deceptive, people may be intimidated by a police officer's request and may be unaware that they have the right to refuse entry."

http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/med...ions/Watch.Out.For.KnockAndTalks-989056.shtml

 

[Echoes]

A General Guide to Police Encounters (Home Edition)

A General Guide to Police Encounters (Home Edition)

If they show up at your door unannounced: You have no obligation whatsoever to answer. Look through your door's peephole or your blinds (don't make it obvious.) Just ignore it. Make sure they can't see inside your house or make sure what they can see is legit and nothing illegal (bongs, weed, plants, etc.) Cover up the smell if you're smoking or have the plants out and just chill for maybe ten minutes.

If you had no way of knowing who was at your door and you opened it anyway then you could possibly be in trouble so it's time to put on the serious face. Make sure there aren't any "illegal odors" coming from your residence. If so, he'll probably call it out (hell, he could technically call it out even if he didn't smell anything.) If you don't have an odor or "in plain sight problem" then you should proceed to calmly step outside and close your door. Answer their questions/bullshit them while being polite and discreet. Do nothing to raise their suspicions. Deny access and deny search. Tell them you're busy or you are about to leave or something.

If they show up with a search or arrest warrant/Holy shit, the cops broke my door down!: Ask to see the warrant (this may or may not work) and make sure it is signed, dated and accurate. Do not run or make sudden, suspicious movement. Do not assault the officers (as they can charge you for assaulting an officer.) Invoke your right to remain silent if necessary. Chances are, if you are at this point, the jig is up and you're probably already in handcuffs. You should just wait and challenge the warrant at the designated time. Lawyer up. Chances are that the warrant is legitimate and you've been caught somehow (snitched on, left an obvious trail, etc.)

My

 

[Guest]

don't answer the door for a cop ever. even if you have nothing going on. don't ever have any interactions with the police unless they are unavoidable. if you do get into a situation with a cop be respectful and intelligent. if you piss them off you might run into them again later when you are doing something illegal and then you are ****ed.

 

[British_Bulldog]

Hi Echoes,

That's good info; I'm just not sure about stepping out of the house and closing the door so you're all outside.

It makes sound legal sense, especially in the case of just smoking/being in possession of a bit of MJ, but in a serious grow op situation, the aim is to put them off the scent of "Big Grower Bust" in the air, and make them think "Small Time Sam"=not worth our effort to pursue anymore.

However, everyone going outside raises huge flags in their eyes that "this guy knows the game and obviously has something to hide, otherwise why would he come outside" (without dogs going mad at the door, of course - that's a good excuse), and they will proabably ask you about this too, and also ask "what have you got to hide?" if they're pretty sure you're upto something, and they probably are.

Without dogs, and with a substantial grow inside, I would always talk with the door open a foot with my foot behind the door - they will also try to push the door open why you're not expecting it during the conversation and try to weasel their way in, but with the foot in place, and you denying them entry, then the only thing left is either lie and say they smell MJ, lie and get a warrant to search, or do the honest thing and set up regular/round the clock surveillance.

Any way, it's game over and if they don't say they smell MJ and force their way in, it's time to get rid before they get rid of it for you - they will also steal some weed and other possessions if there's a bust. This looks good in court as there's less MJ total, but not significantly less to affect the case and your sentence.


Peace

 

[British_Bulldog]

don't answer the door for a cop ever. even if you have nothing going on. don't ever have any interactions with the police unless they are unavoidable. if you do get into a situation with a cop be respectful and intelligent. if you piss them off you might run into them again later when you are doing something illegal and then you are ****ed.

Ok with so many people saying (/thinking) this, all I can say is that you've never grown a significant amount of herb, and not been a professional grower - if you had you would realise that it's best to answer the door everytime someone knocks at it, and be prepared to deal with them.

The knock on the door is a heart-pounding situation, every time, but you need to be able to deal with it.


Peace

 

[Echoes]

Without dogs, and with a substantial grow inside, I would always talk with the door open a foot with my foot behind the door - they will also try to push the door open why you're not expecting it during the conversation and try to weasel their way in, but with the foot in place, and you denying them entry, then the only thing left is either lie and say they smell MJ, lie and get a warrant to search, or do the honest thing and set up regular/round the clock surveillance.

Yes, a good idea as well. I had intended to include that in my post as well but it seems I forgot for some mysterious reason (pot.) Thanks for posting it.

I actually had a situation once where an officer was at my door. I think he may have been suspicious because I had flipped the outside light on a few times (accident really, thought I had the switch that controlled the ceiling lamp and was just doing a little test to see if it was blown.) So he knocks and it's fairly late so we are sort of frightened. My girlfriend ran upstairs to look down and out the front window and saw it was a police officer. We just ignored him and he left. Nothing more. Would've been screwed had I opened the door at all. Bong, herb, pot smoke and a few beers sitting out (underage at the time.) In some cases, the best option is to just ignore them. If they aren't that interested or just bored, they'll go about their business (not always the case.)

 

[yamaha_1fan]

I have on numerous occasions not answered the door when police were knocking. If they have a warrant, they are coming in. If not they are leaving. Dont answer and give them an excuse to come in or the opportunity to make something up like they smelled weed.

 

[Jack Crevalle]

or do the honest thing and set up regular/round the clock surveillance.

Honest? For growing a plant? It's not honest IMO for anyone to snoop on my life because they think I grow a plant, no thanks....you have to be doing alot more in my opinion to warrant that Bullshit. Do you know how many meth labs are running right now?

 

[Guest]

Hi jimbroker and ThirdEye,

Growing weed and having a party are completely different matters, and as such should be treated very differently too.

BTW: ThirdEye - if they do do surveillance, which isn't always due to resources, and come up with nothing, then ultimately it comes down to a Knock and Talk.
Peace

Obviously growing weed and having a party are completely different matters but not when you live life and "work" out of one house and grow in another house, everything you do matters...herb is my life (it feeds me, clothes me, puts a roof over my head, etc.and has for the past 15+ years)

Surveillance these days is cheap they don't need to follow you and pay a team of officers by the hour to do so, all they need to do is tap your phone (hint: use prepaid phones for all business, aka-burners), put a GPS on your car (hint: $220 you can buy a GPS Counter Track which blocks any GPS signal coming from your car http://www.microvideox.com/GPS-Counter-Track.html), go through your garbage (hint: always bag up everything from your grow and throw away elsewhere, never empty your ash tray with stems, roaches, or resin covered baggies, etc. in to your trash, in general never put anything incriminating in to your trash...you can save it up for month and take it straight to the dump)....bottom line if LEO doesn't have enough evidence against you to convince a jury of your guilt or don't go about getting the info in a legal way, which i believe "knock-and-talk" is not unless you are stupid enough to give them consent, the DA is not going to move forward with your case...after all it is more or less more expensive for them to prosecute someone and have them get off because they didn't do their due diligence

In closing if a cop was to knock on my door and ask to search my home, i would deny him and move out immediately the next day, no hesitation just out and movin' on to the next gig, because if they are knockin' they know somethin' and that's enough for me

sorry jimbroker i know you wanted to keep this thread to actual experiences with cops

 

[Guest]

thanks for the info...dudes

 

[British_Bulldog]

thanks for the info...dudes

You're welcome ash, that's what it's here for - to educate and keep people safe.


Remember people: Knowledge is Power!


Peace

 

[jimbroker]

Please do post up your actual experiences.

yamaha1_fan: Thanks for the feedback. I think you are the only one on topic so far.

British_Bulldog: I would very much like to hear your real life situations. I am only inferring from your posts but you seem to be someone with experience in large grow ops and dealing with the police at your door. If you are answering the door to cops and talking to them some of your personal stories might really be helpful for other people.

Thirdeye: I like your style, paranoid and ready for any situation.

I am personally still not convinced by the "answer the door" people. All the tips given so far for answering the door sound like suspicious activity.

I still think this is something worthy of being hashed out so please, the more real experiences, the better. Also, make note of what country you are in. That can significantly change things.

 

[British_Bulldog]

British_Bulldog: I would very much like to hear your real life situations. I am only inferring from your posts but you seem to be someone with experience in large grow ops and dealing with the police at your door. If you are answering the door to cops and talking to them some of your personal stories might really be helpful for other people.

Hi jimbroker,

The info I have posted is of the same help as my personal experiences. I know they would be interesting to many people, but I don't really want to personally ID myself to LEO. I already think that the Italian police are reading what I'm posting unencrypted (living in Italy under their Police State), and so don't want to add fuel to the fire.


Peace

 

[Guest]

Law enforcement uses any tactic to get one to incriminate themselves for ANY reason. The most dangerous calls are domestic in nature, including suspected drug cases. They know how to mess with us and thank goodness, we have watchdogs to keep us informed of tactics and how to deal with them. Thanks to all for this thread's posts.

April 2005, I was nuking my lunch when officer shows up on my back porch with only screen door between us. It seems a paranoid neighbor had called because I was "videotaping her children" with my webcams in 2 windows. Told the officer "I don't give a crap about anyone's kids!! Cameras have been those windows every year for over 20 years and they have lived here with them before the children were born." (I put hummingbird feeders with suction cups on the windows and set up the cameras inside before they get mounted. Eaiser to move the feeders then the cameras and tripods.)

He assured them that upon his inspection, he had determined both camers were aimed at the post mounted bird feeder in my yard. He also informed them that is NOT illegal to take pictures or videos in public areas. The officer said he had made his inspection the day before when no one was home and he noticed all the hummingbird sun catchers in the windows and other nature related decorations on my porches. He was only making a courtesy call to let me know of my neighbor's concerns and to alleviate them by his inspections and findings.

Soooooo............what this story means is

no matter what you do, there is always someone keeping an eye on you.
No accounting for another's paranoia.

Sometimes those "talks" with the law are unavoidable. I just try to be pleasant and act dumbfounded that they need to speak to me at all.


BTW.........the stupid harpy, her useless husband, sister bashing older brother and whiney little sister moved 2 months later!!!!!

 

[yamaha_1fan]

As a teen I got into an altercation with another person that got slapped around. Cops came to the door and knocked the shit out of my door. Wood door, and they put a dent in it from their flashlight. Hid in the kitchen for like 45 minutes (think they left after 10 minutes). Never heard a word about it again.

Recently had an issue with Animal Control and my dog. AC came to take my dog and had police officers with them. My daughter told them threw the bathroom window we were not home and she could not open the door. The lady called me on my cell and I told her no warrant, kiss my ass. Never came back

I did open the door one night at another house over a domestic issue with my ex (who was outside when the popo arrived), cops came barging in, tazered me and my wife, crazy.

DO what you want, but if I know I am in trouble, they better get a warrant or kick the door down.

If you open the door, then they can say they smelled weed, you looked like you had a weapon etc and they just come through an open door. But its alot harder to explain why they busted a door down.