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. 

Thank you for reading (and printing from) The Cincinnati Beacon.