Hot News!
• Register to Vote, Right Now, at The Beacon!
• Cincinnati Progressives on the Bailout
• EXPOSED! Two sets of rules on Fountain Square
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Thursday, June 26, 2008
“Right of Entry,” or Police State Undercover?
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
“Those who would give up their freedom for security will have none and deserve neither.”
-Benjamin Franklin
Yesterday, I attended a meeting where Cincinnati Police officers encouraged attendants to sign and have notarized on the spot “Right of Entry Letters.” Once on file, these letters authorize police “to investigate the activity of anyone located within the property.” Is this a great way to enhance home security, or is this another step towards a police state—one where individual rights and freedoms get trampled by officers who may misinterpret the law?
We were told that these “Right of Entry Letters” would be great for home security when people are gone on vacation. The implication was clear: if you are out of town, and police see someone on your property, they can’t do anything unless they have this letter.
One officer explained it something like this: All the police can do without this letter is get the name of the person on the property. He said they could not search the person for things like guns or drugs. He said they would only be able to take the person’s name, and then, if at some later point, once you return to town, you decide that the person was trespassing, a warrant can be issued for their arrest—but he said it would be unlikely that they would find things like guns and drugs on them at that later point in time.
A while later, when it became appropriate to ask questions, I inquired about the expected response time to something like a security alarm signaling a burglar. The officers could not tell me what an expected wait time should be. They said it depends on how many other things are happening in the district that take precedence, like shootings. The officers made it seem like they are constantly responding to calls for shots fired.
I know, from personal experience, that it can take nearly a half-an-hour for police to respond to an intrusion call from a burglar alarm.
So I started wondering how practical it would actually be to have this letter. Am I to believe that, if on vacation, and a neighbor sees someone in my yard, that police will zip to the scene, enter my property, and find someone loaded with guns and drugs? Or, is something else happening?
I spoke to The Beacon’s senior analyst Michael Earl Patton, and he remembered when police asked him to sign a form allowing them to enter his apartment building. This was shortly after one of his tenants was pushed down a flight of stairs by police, and the cops were later found to be acting improperly. So he was not inclined to give them even more access to potentially abuse his tenants.
In the case above, Patton says the police entered the property because they claimed they were in “hot pursuit.” This means, if a criminal runs into your property while being chased by police, they do not need permission to enter your property to chase the suspect. (In the case above, Patton’s tenant was not being chased in “hot pursuit,” but they apparently came and pushed him down the steps anyway.)
But what about the police claiming that a “Right of Entry” will allow them to search suspects to find guns and drugs?
What about a plain old Terry stop?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk”, or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops
Now, the statement does specify that this only applies when a suspect is stopped “on the street,” and not while on private property. So I guess the usefulness of this concept comes to a rather pointed circumstance, and one must wonder how frequently this occurrence happens.
Imgaine a criminal on your property, and police being notified (or accidentally happening upon them). This criminal would not be in the middle of breaking in when spotted by police, but just lounging around on your property. (I am not personally aware of armed criminals lounging around on my property when I am not home, but perhaps that is just a sign of my ignorance.) I mean, if someone called about a break in, and someone were caught breaking the law, then I’m pretty sure the “hot pursuit” issue would apply. Certainly that would make more sense than the case when Michael Earl Patton’s tenant was pushed down the steps!
Call me crazy, but I just have a hard time imagining the circumstance where this really makes much sense. I don’t think armed criminals sit on my porch when I’m away.
But here is something I can imagine, and I don’t like it. If police are allowed to enter your property whenever they like, that means, should some friends be on your back deck, police can show up and frisk everyone at their will. Now, I’m sure some will say that would never happen. But I wonder. I wonder if that is more or less likely than the gun toting trespasser just sitting on my land, waiting for police to show up without running away.
The whole thing reminds me of the quote by Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up their freedom for security will have none and deserve neither.”
There’s something about this “Right of Entry” concept that rubs me the wrong way.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
26 Jun 2008 at 12:20 pm | #
Yes, I wonder too. Good article. I wouldn’t sign that. Seems it could be used for alot of other things than what they said.
26 Jun 2008 at 04:23 pm | #
Thanks, JFD. Fixed.
26 Jun 2008 at 06:33 pm | #
Funny, I was at the same meeting, and numerous ones previous, and your interpretation leaves alot to be desired. Of course, if your purpose is not to report facts but to find ways to defend your lack of support for those who are sworn to protect you, you’re right on target. I’ll just take you up on your offer above, and on this topic call you crazy.
26 Jun 2008 at 06:57 pm | #
The founders of this Country all agreed on the 4th amendment to the constitution due to the fact they did not trust the government they were forming. The constituion is a document of checks and balances. The 4th amendment is there to protect individuals from unlawful government entry into their homes. I can understand landlords signing such a document, their interest is in the property not the individual rights of their tenants. I can not understand why any other citizen would willingly give up a right so many have fought and died for.
26 Jun 2008 at 08:27 pm | #
Mark wrote:
You have been to numerous previous meetings where Cincinnati police have discussed the “Right of Entry Letters”? How many times have you heard about the “Right of Entry Letters”? Have you ever been given specific examples of this being implemented to catch someone with a gun? Please share the details. If my “interpretation leaves a lot to be desired,” please explain where I am in error.
Where did I fail to report a fact? Or are you just making baseless accusations, ironically in the middle of a sentence that accuses me of doing the same?
If you are predisposed to believe everything police officers tell you, simply because they are police officers, don’t be angry that others apply independent thinking strategies to information with which they are presented.
26 Jun 2008 at 08:46 pm | #
Very, very scary. Sounds like it serves no useful purpose but sets the stage for abuse.
26 Jun 2008 at 10:13 pm | #
If you are predisposed to believe everything police officers tell you, simply because they are police officers, don’t be angry that others apply independent thinking strategies to information with which they are presented.
You got that right. Sure, we will never abuse that, honest, trust me. I am telling you the truth”
Anyone that would sign such of thing is basically to give up your 4th amendmant rights.
Well your honor, both my partner and I saw something running past a tree in the back yard. so we conducted a search ...........
26 Jun 2008 at 10:17 pm | #
A landlord has no right to waive the rights of his tenants. THis could only be used to search a single residence home. Probable cause - such as hot pursuit, belief that a crime is in process, etc. allows them to enter anyway. THis is a bunch of crappola, if you ask me
27 Jun 2008 at 09:08 am | #
I vigorously fought against the marijuana possession penalty increase, which was justified as a way to allow the police to do more thorough searches and confiscate more guns. The problems with this increased penalty have been well documented in the Beacon.
That said, I think the “Right of Entry” letter, which I have signed, is a good idea. Yes, there is potential for abuse. But I feel better knowing that if the police spot suspicious activity on my property and I’m not home, they can approach the person and determine if they have a legitimate right to be there.
Dean, you said: “...one must wonder how frequently this occurrence happens.” It’s happened at least twice on my street in the past three days.
A guy tried to break into my house yesterday when I was home. He knocked repeatedly at my front door, but I was busy, and after a peek out the window, I decided not to answer. He then went around to the back my house and tried to open the back door. I called 911 and within three minutes, two officers in separate cars responded. Within five minutes, a detective arrived to dust for fingerprints. The officer let me know that my neighbor’s house had been broken into a couple of days ago and his laptop stolen. Within twenty minutes of my 911 call, I got a call from the responding officer that the suspect had been apprehended.
If I hadn’t been home yesterday and the police had seen this guy on my property, my “Right of Entry” decal on my door would have allowed them to stop and question the guy. I’m hard pressed to see the harm in that.
27 Jun 2008 at 10:15 am | #
What the form would have done is given the police permission to enter into the common areas of the building (hallway, stairs, etc.) even if they were not in hot pursuit. My understanding was that the police then could question people they found there and even arrest them.
I was on the verge of doing this when the incident with my friend, the Reverend Tye, happened. I said no way. The police said that the right of “hot pursuit” extended even to cases of disorderly conduct. And what was the “disorderly conduct?” The Reverend Tye was protesting the illegal arrest of his son for refusing to answer questions—questions not concerning him, but concerning his father. Which is his right. The police can demand some basic information such as your name, but they cannot just stop you in the street, question you about what you might know, and arrest you if they don’t like the answers.
So rather than knock on the father’s door they arrested the son. Chief Streicher said that the officers did nothing wrong even though the Citizen Complaint Authority found ample evidence of wrong-doing. One of the officers involved was promoted shortly thereafter.
27 Jun 2008 at 11:22 am | #
I vigorously fought against the marijuana possession penalty increase, which was justified as a way to allow the police to do more thorough searches and confiscate more guns. The problems with this increased penalty have been well documented in the Beacon.
That said, I think the “Right of Entry” letter, which I have signed, is a good idea. Yes, there is potential for abuse. But I feel better knowing that if the police spot suspicious activity on my property and I’m not home, they can approach the person and determine if they have a legitimate right to be there.
Dean, you said: “...one must wonder how frequently this occurrence happens.” It’s happened at least twice on my street in the past three days.
A guy tried to break into my house yesterday when I was home. He knocked repeatedly at my front door, but I was busy, and after a peek out the window, I decided not to answer. He then went around to the back my house and tried to open the back door. I called 911 and within three minutes, two officers in separate cars responded. Within five minutes, a detective arrived to dust for fingerprints. The officer let me know that my neighbor’s house had been broken into a couple of days ago and his laptop stolen. Within twenty minutes of my 911 call, I got a call from the responding officer that the suspect had been apprehended.
If I hadn’t been home yesterday and the police had seen this guy on my property, the “Right of Entry” decal on my door would have allowed them to stop and question the guy. I’m hard pressed to see the harm in that.
27 Jun 2008 at 12:36 pm | #
No! You may not enter my house, flatfoot! Come back with a warrant. I’ll be here. Thanks. Be careful out there. Have a nice day, officer…
27 Jun 2008 at 02:03 pm | #
So if you are not home, and someone is knocking on your front door, police should frisk the guy? What if he just wants to know if you’ll participate in a canned food drive?
27 Jun 2008 at 02:09 pm | #
Can someone show me where police on prohibited in the law from entering property if they receive a report of suspicious activity? Or of a break in? Or of an alarm sounding? And so forth?
27 Jun 2008 at 02:41 pm | #
They can’t Dean, as long as they have “probable cause” they can do darn near anything. In SW Ohio - probable cause is broadly construed. In law classes I have taken, the professors say that the law here is not how it works in the rest of the country.
27 Jun 2008 at 02:47 pm | #
Dean,
In answer to your first question, the issue is not knocking at the door. It’s the trying the doorknob on the back door in order to gain unlawful entry.
As to your second question, the police are not prohibited from entering a property if they receive a report. But that’s the whole point of the right of entry concept. If no one is home and no neighbor reports the suspicious activity, then the police cannot come on your property to investigate, even if they see someone. But if you have a right of entry decal, then they can investigate without a report.
And please note each property owner is free to sign up or not. People are not compelled to give the police this power.
Perhaps some research is in order before you assume the worst about this idea. I would be interested to know how many people have signed the letter and if any of them have been unhappy with the results or have observed police abusing the right of entry power to harass law-abiding citizens.
27 Jun 2008 at 04:54 pm | #
Paul,
I want to understand your example completely. Firstly, you called the police to say someone tried to break into your back door. This is very different than police finding a burglar at your backdoor due to having a “Right of Entry” sticker in your front window. In fact, the two things are completely unrelated.
I’m not sure how “Right of Entry” would allow an officer to see someone in the back of your house anyway, unless you are on a corner, or really close to one.
So if you are going to give me examples, please give me one about “Right to Entry” saving you, and not your call to 911. If anything, your example just proves that calling 911 can be effective.
You write, “If no one is home and no neighbor reports the suspicious activity, then the police cannot come on your property to investigate, even if they see someone.” What do you mean? Do you mean, “even if they see someone doing something suspicious”?
Perhaps some research is in order before you assume the best about this idea. I would be interested to know how many people have signed the letter and had a trespasser rightfully arrested. I’d also like to know how many guns and drugs have been apprehended as a result of arresting people through the “Right of Entry” program.
In the meanwhile, I’ll just hope the next time my burglar alarm sounds and the police are called, they show up quickly enough that an intruder would at least need to be in some kind of hurry before getting away with my laptop.
27 Jun 2008 at 10:36 pm | #
You received a very abbreviated explanation of the right of entry process and missed speaking about one of the main components of the program. Under this program you agree to back the prosecution of criminals who may have burgarlarized your property, etc. This is not about invading your rights, you don’t have to sign it. For me it is about getting the criminal and not wasting the tax payers money. I’ve had a couple of incidents at my home including a breaking and entering which has left me uncomfortable whenever I leave my house. While nothing will ever bring me back to the security I once felt, catching and prosecuting the invaders would have given me some satisfaction. There are bad apples in every walk of life, police, teachers, etc. Just because someone in your profession did something wrong, does that make you bad too. Do your homework Dean and don’t jump to conclusions.
28 Jun 2008 at 06:15 am | #
I have a copy of the Right of Entry letter in front of me. It does not say anything about agreeing “to back the prosecution of criminals who may have burglarized your property.”
Since the premise in your first sentence is incorrect, I don’t know how to read the rest of your comment.
For example, do you think this will save tax money because people agree to back prosecution? Since there is no such agreement built into the Right of Entry agreement, how will this save tax dollars?
So maybe you should do your homework and remain open minded, Openminded.
29 Jun 2008 at 08:09 pm | #
It sounds implausible that the police will know if they have a Right of Entry on file for every property they pass and further know if the rightful tenants happen to be in town or out of town. And even futher, that the police would recognize by sight the people that live there and be able to differentiate between them from trespassers.
30 Jun 2008 at 07:52 pm | #
And how often do we hear that the police didn’t know that there was a restraining order in a domestic violence situation and somebody ends up dead? Fix that first. It’s ludicrous to think that the police will be keeping track of everyone that takes a weekend trip and will be diligently watching for “strangers.” What’s the real reason behind this?
30 Jun 2008 at 09:33 pm | #
The Dean is correct in his observations. This is not the first time the police pulled this kind of actions. They have little or no regard to the principles of our constitution. If they could, the police would have their police state in a minute.
But you are missing what is happening here. This is a ploy to give the police and the people they are really working for, city hall, another excuse for their failures in stopping crime. By saying that they need Right of Entry, which they will never get, they can distract criticism of their incompetence. “They” are not only the police but the so-called leaders at city hall.
Dean correctly challenged Paul Green with some very valid points. It seems that most of you haven’t a clue about how house criminals work. What are any of you doing to protect yourselves? Why haven’t you got involved with your neighbors? Last month, I left town for a month and my neighbors were informed. They are far more effective than the police. I can’t remember the last time I saw a policeman on my street. And that is ok because they don’t really know our neighborhood and we don’t know them. Green would have better off if he would have just let the guy break in. When he got inside, he could have shot him and the problem is solved. Now he has to worry about the guy coming back and they do come back. As it is, this guy will walk free because hasn’t really did anything for which he will be convicted.
Of course, if you really want to reduce crime, the reasons for doing crime have to be eliminated. But that requires that we actually give a damn about those that are prone to do crimes.
01 Jul 2008 at 09:52 am | #
Dean,
If interpretations of what we heard at a meeting are not allowed, then I guess we can disregard your initial editorial as well as mine. If we can only go by what was in the hard copy print, maybe you should have included the actual form with your original post. Then people can decide for themselves. That’s democracy, and I’m in favor of that.
Openminded
01 Jul 2008 at 10:37 am | #
What do you mean when you write “interpretations”? Are you referring to “backing prosecutions,” which is listed no where on this legal document and therefore is something you are just making up?
So, yes, let people decide for themselves whether the following legal agreement equates to your statement: “Under this program you agree to back the prosecution of criminals who may have burgarlarized your property, etc.”
Here’s the entire contract language:
01 Jul 2008 at 10:45 am | #
You failed to include the picture of the burly East German woman in possession of a hot lamp forcing you to sign the document.
Patiently waiting for the next “scandal”....
speed humps
open refrigeration units
black, green, pink slime in the Millcreek
who paid for the restaurant
01 Jul 2008 at 02:54 pm | #
Stan, you forgot to mention the 3CDC garage scandal that was picked up by WLW. 3CDC failed to make the garage safe for handicapped people even after the dangers were pointed out to them by the Dean well over a year ago. What’s wrong with a citizen looking out for the public interest when it comes to our environment, public safety and overseeing a mysterious organization that uses our tax money without oversight?
01 Jul 2008 at 04:26 pm | #
...
police not showing up fast enough for a break-in
a “secretary” being proclaimed as a spokesman for the county.... (remember that?)
....
I can hardly wait for the perverbial question to a person of note…
“Are you still beating your wife?”
01 Jul 2008 at 04:47 pm | #
Stan, I think this is a concern worthy of discussion. Nobody claimed a “secretary” was a spokeman for the county. And no person of note has been asked about beating their wives. But by all means go ahead and continue your off topic rambling some more. If you don’t have anything to add to the discussion (and it’s clear you don’t) just go ahead and make more meaningless statements. And there’s no need to thank the Dean for bringing public safety concerns to the public’s attention. He doesn’t do it to be praised by little men like you.
02 Jul 2008 at 07:41 am | #
Justin.....
1) A secretary, possibly a receptionist, was the quoted source with regards to the jail property. When called on the “source”, the matter like so many the dean throws against the wall (as you will see shortly) died off.
2) the dean has now decided that since his “prove to me that you did nothing wrong, even though I have no proof that something wrong happened” approach on the restaurant is going nowhere, he’s now focusing the matter on a “bad business deal” by 3CDC. He again has nothing to support his claims, but it is a good transition away from his fishing expidition.
3) His episode with the police response was well “documented”. He’s got an axe to grind with the police, and he’s shown on more than one occasion that he’ll bring the matter up just to try to embarras the department. It hasn’t worked.... trust me....
4) Obviously you are too ignorant to see the similarity between the wife beating question and his “scandals”.
5) If you don’t like my criticisms of the dean, then don’t read them. Better yet, ask the dean to not publish them. You all can agree with yourselves....yep, that’s the solution to problems…
6) I’m somewhat disapointed that you resorted to calling names. Little Man?? Come on, you can do better than that......
Then again, aren’t you the council candidate that had your teenies carrying your campaign signs UPSIDE DOWN on a Price Hill intersection?
Speaks volumes....
02 Jul 2008 at 08:01 am | #
Stan.....
1) The situation you reference here, like so many others, showed what a boondoggle it is to get reliable information from government offices.
2) I have NOT changed focus. The recent article supposes that everything we’ve been told (without documentation) is true. Even then, it still doesn’t make sense! We have the ground lease. The City is listed as the responsible party. If that responsibility was “assigned” to 3CDC, then let us see the contract. Isn’t it possible that the alleged contract includes some “exchange” that could very well equate to the $2.5 million we’ve talked about this whole time?
3) An ax to grind? If advocating for a more effective police force is an “ax,” then yes, not only do I have one to grind, but I’d argue that all responsible citizens should have the same ax to grind along with me.
4) The “wife beating” analogy you draw is a false analogy, which is ironic since you are using a fallacy to accuse me of the same. The the wife beating question is a fallacy (known as the ”Loaded Question”
because it bases itself on presuppositions not supported by fact. In contrast, the FSQ restaurant issue is based on contract language in the Ground Lease with 5/3 Bank, where the City of Cincinnati agreed to pay all hard and soft construction costs.
5) If you don’t like Justin’s responses to your responses, then don’t read them.
6) How clever! You insult the insult as a way to be insulting!
Then again, after all this time, you still remember seeing those campaign signs. Guess the upside sign strategy worked.
Speaks volumes....
02 Jul 2008 at 10:31 am | #
I kind of like Justin’s responses, in fact I encourged him to to do better than “little man”.
How’d the speed hump issue turn out?
...... chirp chirp chirp .......
or the Kroger issue ?
.... chirp chirp chirp.....
...... thought so............
02 Jul 2008 at 10:50 am | #
Stan,
Thanks for asking:
I can’t remember if I posted this. Here is my last communication regarding speed humps. I have not yet had time to follow up to get the offending hump fixed. But if I do, then I think you’ll admit I have done a great service:
What Kroger issue? Open refrigeration units? I know, saving energy is such a stupid idea!
02 Jul 2008 at 11:35 am | #
Dean, you have a lot of nerve suggesting ways to help corporations save energy and money. Shame on you! And your pushing 3CDC to be more open and to make the garage safe for handicapped people is really out of line. What goes on in this city is none of your business. What do you think, being a taxpayer gives a right to ask questions or something?
02 Jul 2008 at 01:17 pm | #
Yet…
how dare anyone question you…
I now get it !!
02 Jul 2008 at 01:32 pm | #
Stan, thanks for your thoughtful comments and for reading the Beacon!
18 Jul 2008 at 05:32 pm | #
Am I reading this “Right to Entry” consent correctly???
The language is just vague enough to grant blanket permission to police to search a person’s home, person etc. indefinitly, as long as the property owner signed the paper.
It sounds like they are selling it as a way to protect your property when you are not home but that is not what it really says.
The property owner does not need to be absent. Cincinnati Police could technically enter the property, search and make arrests whenever they want, without a warrant. Including searching and arresting the owner.
18 Jul 2008 at 08:21 pm | #
Mrs. B!
Actually that is not true. The person may rescind permission at any time. Just as you may let a person into your house and any time that you wish you may order him out immediately; if the person doesn’t respond, you may charge him with trespass and even sue civilly.
The problem could be when a landlord attempts to authorize entry into a rented apartment, in which case, the landlord can be sued and maybe also the policeman.
Unless the permission is coerced, it seems like a reasonable immediate solution for some that have developed an irrational fear. More dangerous is the false belief that the police will either be more effective or give some a false sense of security.
Again, no one is addressing the underlying problem of poverty or wealth disparity. So long as people don’t have wealth, they will provide for themselves in any way they see fit.