SCOTUS Case Over Vacant House

[Senator]

No.. it's not a get out of jail free card. This decision has exactly nothing to do with what happens if someone breaks into your house. People say they were charged with crimes they did not commit, and the decision is about whether the officers involved had probable cause to make the charge. The people charged didnt break into a house, neither side is disputing that.

Also.. with the current district court ruling, Peaches can be arrested if the owner were to bring charges, as she was the person that unlawfully entered the property. The case isn't about that, however, its about charges brought against the others she invited.

And what is the difference between someone (or a group) that breaks into your house, and someone that says they were invited by someone else? And that someone may not even exist, except in the virtual world.

Did you know that sometimes criminal lie? And smart defense lawyers are pretty smart? And cops will often take the easy way out, and another Ferguson effect could result with break-ins?

 

[ERD50]

Isn't a parallel the situation where you are unknowingly in possession of stolen property? AFAIK, the officials confiscate the property, but you are not charged with a crime.

Hard to prove if guests are at a place on a 'wink-wink-nod-nod', 'somebody' invited me, or they really thought it was a legit place to have a party.

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

Wasn't there somewhat similar situation with a case about a year ago where this live in nanny got fired but refused to leave saying she can't be evicted because that's a her place of residence? I think eventually, she got shamed to leave with all the publicity but was a big headache for the home owners.

 

[MichaelB]

Wasn't there somewhat similar situation with a case about a year ago where this live in nanny got fired but refused to leave saying she can't be evicted because that's a her place of residence? I think eventually, she got shamed to leave with all the publicity but was a big headache for the home owners.

That went to the Supreme Court?

+1@ swguy. This case is about probable cause, not trespassing, and is not likely to lead to the type of chaos or lawlessness that Senator fears.

 

[easysurfer]

That went to the Supreme Court?

+1@ swguy. This case is about probable cause, not trespassing, and is not likely to lead to the type of chaos or lawlessness that Senator fears.

Didn't go to supreme court. That's why I said somewhat similar to give some wiggle room .

One similarity, of course is, my place, I want to be the king of the castle.

 

[jazz4cash]

I don't know how this case will turn out, but if anyone hears of a similar place, let me know.

You have a PM.

Just kidding. I live in the area and I have seen flyers placed on dozens of cars, especially in parking lots of legitimate "gentlemen's clubs" for "afterhours parties". It's unintended consequences from elimination of most of the legitimate clubs in the area. What I don't understand is if neighbors complain and the police show up and say "you're disturbing the peace......cut it out, leave, or be arrested", who would stick around to be arrested? It's a waste of law enforcement and judicial resources.

 

[Senator]

This case is about probable cause, not trespassing, and is not likely to lead to the type of chaos or lawlessness that Senator fears.

I do not disagree. And if a bunch of unknown people are having a party in your house while you spent a week away traveling, there will be no probable cause to arrest any of them.

That could be the fallout.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

That went to the Supreme Court?

+1@ swguy. This case is about probable cause, not trespassing, and is not likely to lead to the type of chaos or lawlessness that Senator fears.

This. And even more important is that of qualified immunity of the officers. The trespassing aspect of it will have zero bearing on future trespassing issues.

As for the comment on "thousands of dollars" on a battery back-up alarm...um, there is Simplisafe...much, MUCH cheaper than the "old school" systems.

 

[Senator]

This. And even more important is that of qualified immunity of the officers. The trespassing aspect of it will have zero bearing on future trespassing issues.

Imagine if the officers are held personally liable for the 'false' arrests. I suspect that they will have much less incentive to pursue property crimes such as a bunch, or even one, person in the wrong house.

 

[Senator]

Solution: Always set the alarm before you leave. With most alarms, unless it's disarmed, it makes a racket, and keeps making a racket (whooping). The trespassers don't know if the cops will come automatically or if the neighbors will call the cops. The perps would have to figure out how to disable it. Most alarms have battery backup inside a steel box hidden and bolted to a wall somewhere, so flipping a breaker isn't going to do it. You'd have to find the box, force the box open or tear it off the wall. It doesn't sound like these perps were that kind of people, lol!

If the house of the court case had an alarm, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What they should do is throw the case out and scold the house owners for being idiots.

Unless if it's in St Paul...

St. Paul Police said they lowered burglary alarms from an immediate response to a sort of "get-there-when-you-can" call because a spike in false alarms cost the city about $2.6 million in 2016.

False Alarms Lead St. Paul Police to Move Burglary Calls Down Priority List | KSTP.com

 

[kcowan]

False Alarms Lead St. Paul Police to Move Burglary Calls Down Priority List | KSTP.com[/url]

We have had neighbours with poorly installed security systems that trigger when a strong wind rattles the windows and doors. The alarm goes off and the police don't come.

Same reason given. We decided to go with a system that flashed lights and annunciated that "A silent alarm has been triggered" repeatedly.

 

[Pilot2013]

If I (or anyone) comes home to someone, or multiple people in my home without MY invitation, I am afraid that I will be the one going to jail, because they could very well be leaving in bags.

Home invasion is no joke.

 

[Winemaker]

If I (or anyone) comes home to someone, or multiple people in my home without MY invitation, I am afraid that I will be the one going to jail, because they could very well be leaving in bags.

Home invasion is no joke.

+1

I have several hole makers myself.

 

[Texas Proud]

That is exactly what may happen. And even if you are gone for an evening, it could happen. It doesn't have to be a rental and it doesn't have to be a long time.

Someone, or a group, says they are invited by someone else. The someone else may exist, or not. They willingly leave when the cops show up and say they are sorry. No arrests. The damage was there before they got there, and there never was a TV on the wall.

How is that different than this SCOTUS case?. In the current case, the cops arrested everyone. The charges were all dropped.

With the current district court ruling, no one can even be arrested.

Property crime rarely gets solved as it is, this is a "get out of jail free card" for lots of riff-raff.

I think you are confusing a criminal violation with a civil one....

No matter what is decided in this case there is nothing stopping you from suing all the people for any damages to your property, including missing TV.... just file your case against every person that you have a name in one case.... let the judge sort out who will pay....

One will hope that the cops are taking names etc. of the people as that is not at issue in this case as far as I can tell...

You are right that property crime is not solved... but that is because they never got any person in the property...

 

[jollystomper]

Someone, or a group, says they are invited by someone else. The someone else may exist, or not. They willingly leave when the cops show up and say they are sorry. No arrests. The damage was there before they got there, and there never was a TV on the wall.

How is that different than this SCOTUS case?. In the current case, the cops arrested everyone. The charges were all dropped.

That is not what happened in the case. The people proved , before they were arrested, that the person who invited them was real. It was not until the police got in touch with the person, who then admitted that yes she did invite them but did not have permission to use the house, were arrests made.

If you are using something that is not yours, and cops show up, they are not going to let you walk away unless they can get in touch with whomever you claim gave you permission. They will try to quickly find out if it was made it up and act accordingly.

 

[sengsational]

So every homeowner is an idiot if they don't have a $500-1000 battery powered alarm system installed in steel box in a hidden part of their house? So what security sales firm do you work for

"alarm system" in amazon shows a self-install alarm for $70 that can run for 2 hours on battery and can dial various phone numbers. One motion and two door sensors. Another $10 for the siren. Steel box would be extra. I'll use this opportunity to say NEVER get a "free install" along with an expensive, long-term monitoring contract with a security firm!

It's kind of crazy to spend hundreds of thousands on a house, and not have at least a minimal alarm system, but that's just me.

As to the St. Paul thing, I don't think it's important that EVERY alarm owner has a system where the cops (or some other real person) shows-up as soon as the alarm goes off...it's enough that an unknown few have that kind of arrangement. This way, the perps, when they hear that they've triggered an alarm, probably think it's not the best place to have a party.