What should I do if being stalked by police? For example, if I was driving clearly under the speed limit and obeying all traffic laws and a police officer was following me without lights on, what should I do? I know that for other stalkers I should drive through the police parking lot, but what about when the stalker is a cop? Also, what if a cop tries to force entry into my home without a warrant? Should I call 911?
police stalking
- Thread starter a thing
- Start date
tobala
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,385
Next time he follows you, abruptly pull over (use proper signaling of course), and as he passes get the car number. Then file a complaint. If he stops behind you, demand to know why he is harassing you.
If someone tries breaking into your house without identifying themselves as LE, by all means call 911 because then you will have the incident on record.
If someone tries breaking into your house without identifying themselves as LE, by all means call 911 because then you will have the incident on record.
What if they do identify themselves as a LE and do not have a warrant?
tobala
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,385
Well there are situations where LE may force entry under special circumstances. Quoting from Wikipedia:
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.
People v. Ramey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976).
United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984):
"Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Anderson, 154 F. 3d 1225 (10th Cir, 1998) cert. denied 119 S. Ct. 2048 (1999). There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence. United States v. Reed, 935 F. 2d 641 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 960 (1991). In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary. See Grosenheider, supra and United States v. David, 756 F. Supp. 1385 (D. Nev. 1991).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance
As you can see from the above, warrantless entry into private residences requires prudent judgment calls on the part of LE. Whether LE has exercised good judgment in any particular case may need to be decided by a higher court at a later time.
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.
People v. Ramey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976).
United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984):
"Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact. United States v. Anderson, 154 F. 3d 1225 (10th Cir, 1998) cert. denied 119 S. Ct. 2048 (1999). There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence. United States v. Reed, 935 F. 2d 641 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 960 (1991). In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary. See Grosenheider, supra and United States v. David, 756 F. Supp. 1385 (D. Nev. 1991).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance
As you can see from the above, warrantless entry into private residences requires prudent judgment calls on the part of LE. Whether LE has exercised good judgment in any particular case may need to be decided by a higher court at a later time.
tobala
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,385
Well I don't really have an answer for you. If it is LE and they've identified themselves, then they are illegally breaking and entering into your house, with the likely outcome that you will be arrested and processed. Any legal transgressions on their part would have to be addressed through the system at a later date.
If they have not identified themselves as LE, and I felt me and my family were in danger, they would be dealing with the business end of a .357 and the legal ramifications could be worked out later as well. Just my $0.02.![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
If they have not identified themselves as LE, and I felt me and my family were in danger, they would be dealing with the business end of a .357 and the legal ramifications could be worked out later as well. Just my $0.02.
Green Laser
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2008
- Messages
- 116
If they have not identified themselves as LE, and I felt me and my family were in danger, they would be dealing with the business end of a .357 and the legal ramifications could be worked out later as well. Just my $0.02.
I know this is LD and all but... loled.
xyther4523
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 95
i have had LE follow me without lights on, and i couldnt figure out why. I literally drove for 20 mins straight just trying to see if the LE officer would still follow me around. I pulled over in a Denny's parking lot and asked him what was i doing that he should feel the need to follow me for so long..and he said they got a report that a car like mine was shooting out the blow up christmas decorations you put outside your house with a type of gun.
you would think they would have pulled me over faster if they thought i had a gun..and with a suspended drivers licence at the time. idk what gets into cops, but i always figured that story was bullshit
you would think they would have pulled me over faster if they thought i had a gun..and with a suspended drivers licence at the time. idk what gets into cops, but i always figured that story was bullshit