- Filter by:
- All
High: 31° / Low: 18° — Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul
Troy Molde awoke at 3 a.m. Thursday to police flashlights shining in his face. Two uniformed Lakeville officers were in his bedroom, knocking on the wall to wake him up.
Their surprise visit was part of a public service campaign. Officers had fanned out across the city, leaving notices on doors to remind residents how to prevent thefts by keeping garage doors closed, not leaving valuables in cars and locking windows or doors. But at Molde's house, they went further. Is this justified? Acting for the man's safety, or the police going to far?
Maybe they can accompany me to OCB and help remind me to have fewer popcorn shrimp too. And whisper in my ear to avoid the drunken gonorreah girl at table 23 while they're at it.
WTF! Apparently the police state is here.
Seems a little odd, but I guess by getting the story their message got the exposure they were looking for. Between this and Petey P. Cup, things are getting a little wierd this summer.
Didn't entering someone's home who didn't expect it end very badly earlier this year in North Minneapolis?
Cops are way out of line, but seriously so is this guy. Don't leave the door open to where your kids are sleeping.
I want to be mad at the cops here, but it seems like they were probably justified, given the situation (TV on, door open, won't respond to knocking...).
While it is an interesting story and all, front page? Seriously PiPress? This is one of the most important stories of the last 24 hours? Really?
Police said the intrusion was justified because the officers' initial door knocks went unanswered. Police went inside to check if anything was wrong, Sgt. Jim Puncochar said.
There's plenty of reasons why a person might not respond to a door knock, even with the tv on. Hell, especially with the tv on.
It was 3 a.m. in the morning for gawd's sake. If I'm sleeping, good luck waking me up.
But, maybe not the brightest move to have kids that young with the doors unlocked and so far away from them that you can't hear.
I sure as hell wouldn't respond to a door knock at 3 a.m. In fact, I'd probably call the cops if I heard someone knocking on my door at that point.
Wouldn't it have been better for them to try calling first? And then consider entering if they got no response?
Yeah, I'm not going to respond favorably to a knock at my door at 3am. Plus I sleep with a fan on high, soI doubt I would hear it anyways.
I'm normally a big supporter of police and some of the tactics they are required to use for their and our safety, but the more I think about this the more I'm super creeped out by it.
i was all ready to defend the police until i actually read the article. entering his house...WTF???
And if you are a thief, FYI, people in Lakeville don't lock their doors. And some leave thier keys in the ignition still too.
@minneapolis police department:
If you knock infiltrate my bedroom at 3 a.m. you are more than likely going to find me in a state of undress. Just warnin' ya.
Officers also leave the messages when checking on a home security alarm or to warn of a law violation they see at the residence. The department began using door hangers a year ago to tackle a rise in burglaries in 2006, Chief Tom Vonhof said at the time.
I wonder if the door hangers say, "This house is unlocked. Come on in!"
It just seems like they could have found other alternatives. It could have easily gone very wrong if the guy had responded differently.
But, I do have to agree with the lock your damn doors and take your keys outta you car. Sheesh.
Well, to be fair, it was either find someone with an unlocked house and wake 'em up or hit up the local Perkins. I applaud Lakeville PD's wise use of taxpayer dollars.
This is a clear violation of police authority. Its one thing to give someone a reminder that they should lock up - its quite another to enter a residence with no cause. And there was no cause here. Anyone knocks on my door or enters my house at 3am will be met with either a baseball bat or a pistol.
One wonders what these idiots are thinking.
Oh - if you want to check out a blog that keeps track of militant tactics by various police forces - hit: http://www.theagitator.com/
I would much rather that the police be concerned for my safety than to just shrug their shoulders and walk away, not caring if everything was okay. Separate from each other, these incidents - door unlocked, keys in your car, TV on - maybe they wouldn't have gone in.
I think it was justified and that they had every right to go in - You would be blaming them left and right if something had happened to the family and the police hadn't gone in.
I totally side with the cops. What kind of parent goes to bed with the house wide open, and little kids in plain view? It's one thing to make yourself vulnerable to getting robbed/beaten/murdered, but when you're responsible for little kids..you need to learn the lesson some way or another.
Police do health and saftey checks all the time. When I was a supervisor, if someone didn't show up and didn't call in they got one hour. Then we called your house and/or cell phone. If you don't answer, then we call your ememgency contact. If they don't know where you are or how to get a hold of you, we call the police. They go to your house and check on you.
It is a good policy. A) People called in when they were out. No one wants thier family all freaked out and/or police showing up. B) We found people dead in their garages and things like that.
Point being, if something looks suspicious, or other have reasons to think you are in danger, the police have the right and the duty to check things out. Now, if they would have found 100 lbs of weed, then it would be a different story.
Totally unjustified.
The police think they are above the law, and apparently they are, big suprise.
I wonder what would happen if the on duty cops would have walked into a cop's house and then been shot?
The garage is open and the keys are inside the vehicle. The door is unlocked and the TV is on at 3am. Nobody is answering the door. They make the decision to make sure everyone is okay, and enter the house, which I'm okay with considering this is how dead people are discovered pretty frequently. They talk to the kids who say they're afraid to wake up dad. At this point I can understand why they did what they did.
If placed in a similar situation I think I'd be startled, probably a little pissed because I don't like being startled, but in the end I'd be grateful because there's a chance that I died in my shower and in a week my neighbors are gonna be smelling the stank.
This guy is a moron. The cops should have driven on by and let whatever thugs wanted to have at him.
#1- This is why I lock the doors all the time, every time. And I don't answer the door to anyone I don't know without being armed. (You may think I'm paraniod, but I don't care. )
#2- If anyone, and I mean anyone had pulled a stunt like this they would at least be staring into the business end of a Winchester 1300. (That doesn't mean I'd shoot, just persuade them to leave as quickly as possible, and not come back.)
#3- The police in North Minneapolis got lucky when they shot up the innocent mans house and two of their own got shot fot the trouble... they were wearing full tactical gear and were in a large team. These jackasses, while wearing the standard body armor, would have been dropped with a single head-shot. How do you think they would have spun that story?
While this does seem to be a 4th amendment violation, I'm sure that they'll just use the argument that they thought there was danger and they went to check it out.
Does anyone remember a last year when people were getting pulled over for being good drivers (not here)?
I'd be a bit creeped out if the police walked in to my house in the middle of the night because my door is unlocked. I'm all for keeping your house safe but I thought it was also a right to be so wildly wreckless as to leave your door unlocked.
But it wasn't that the door was unlocked. The door was partly open. The garage door was open. The truck had its keys in the ignition. The TV was on. Children were in clear view. It looked like someone might be in a bad situation. I see where the police are coming from on this one.
But it wasn't that the door was unlocked. The door was partly open
So say the cops. The guy says the door wasn't open.
Cops are liars, especially when it comes to covering their own asses.
Cops are liars
so are attention whores.
so are attention whores.
Considering the number of comments you have on this post, I guess you'd know. KC!'s best arguement
Okay, how about this...
The guy does not say his door was closed. He says "he remembers leaving the doors to his house closed..." They could have been opened by one of the kids. One may not have been closed tightly. He may remember incorrectly.
And please provide proof that cops are liars. Some cops lie, sure, but I want proof that cops are liars. That their trade makes them lie.
As for attention whores being liars, there was the people who put the finger in the chili as my first example. If you want me to pull up more, I will.
This is a preposterous use of police. All we hear when new laws come out is how many additional officer-hours it'll take beyond what they already have to do. That's one of the biggest reasons practically no department considers immigranttion status during an arrest. From drunk drivers to graffiti punks, there's no limit to the places cops' attention should be at 3 am.
By the way, just think of the hornets nest had the person rousted in the middle of the night had NOT been whitey in the suburbs.
They only way people will lock their doors is if they believe they have to. What cops tell them will not land anything like a burglary.
I totally side with the cops. What kind of parent goes to bed with the house wide open, and little kids in plain view? It's one thing to make yourself vulnerable to getting robbed/beaten/murdered, but when you're responsible for little kids..you need to learn the lesson some way or another.
Um, it's not the cop's job to protect you from being a moron. While it's dumb to leave your doors unlocked, it's certainly not a crime, nor is it cause for child neglect (that would be determined should a crime occur, but that's up to Child Services). Cops were outta line. Period.
@KC! It's called Testilying and it doesn't take much research to show how frequently cops lie.
Also, for the police being able to enter there'd have to be something called Exigent Cirsumstances, which are not met just because doors and windows are left open; even in the middle of the night.
You feel free to give up your rights, but don't expect the rest of us to blindly follow.
As @aliecat said Cops were outta line. Period.
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.
First, they did knock and wait, so this doesn't apply.
Second, find me proof that cops lie more than the average person. Find me proof that all cops lie.
Cops are always bad, I hear that all the time. Please, move to a marginal neighborhood. You will quickly realize that they are your friends.
Okay, I'm out for the day.
1) Knock and Wait is for a knock and wait warrant, which they didn't have, otherwise they need to prove there is imminent danger.
Way to only read one paragraph.
2)It's called testilying. Way to not read any of the proof you asked for.
3)No one said cops are always bad.
Ha. This story is on the front page of the Lansing State Journal website in Michigan.
But you did say cops are liars, Some guy, which is a pretty generalized statement. And as previously stated, I think they could have handled it differently.
And to Kc!'s point. The cops in my former 'hood were absofreakin'lutely awesome. They were not only present and responsive, but they treated everyone with respect - more than I would have with some.
In the vein of the "it was 3am" ideas... what of those of us who work grave shift and do our car maint, laundry, etc... on our off nights? What if your AC is broken and you choose to have your windows open (and garage door open a little) to beat the heat?
Home invasion is home invasion, done by criminal thugs. It doesn't matter how they justify it... a quick score or under color of law. (In this case I fail to see that justification... no warrant, no entry. And don't give me that exigent circumstances bullshit.)
But you did say cops are liars, Some guy
True, I also provided evidence of such.
Which was more than the Appeals to Emotion and ad hominen attacks made by KC!.
Binky: I don't know that the same scenario would have taken place if the dude had been up doing things around the house. They responded the way they did because the dude wasn't answering them.
You could "what if" this situation to death. They made a mistake and hopefully they'll rethink the way they handle these things.
what if he was in the shower?
what if he was in bed with his girlfriend?
what if he was in the basement running power-tools?
the point is that the police did not make a mistake, it's that they stepped *way* out of line and justified a warrantless invasion with cute little terms... "exigent circumstances" being one of them.
violation of constitutional rights is violation of constitutional rights, no matter how you sell it.
I'm pretty sure there's no law saying you can't leave your doors open and keys in the ignition.
This is ridiculous and I can't believe how many people are defending this totally inappropriate police behavior!
I guess they're concerned we're starting to act like Canadians?
What they did was wrong -- no question. However, at no point did they violate the constitutional rights of this individual. Did they search and/or seize anything? Nope. Did they make an arrest? Nope. Did they do anything besides tell the guy to lock his doors? Nope.
If you want to keep the cops out of your house, you lock your doors just as you would to keep someone else out. The police were performing a public service -- poorly and in an ill advised manner -- but no civil or constitutional rights were violated.
If they didn't search, how did they know the keys were in the ignition?
Looked through the window with a flashlight?
Okay, let's flip this around: Someone cite one law allowing those cops to enter that house under those circumstances. Peace officers don't have unlimited power and discretion. Absent some articulable legal basis for their little frolic and detour, I don't see any difference between this and a garden-variety trespass case.
There are more than a few good civil rights attorneys in town who'd love to teach the Lakeville cops a lesson. I think this gent should lawyer up and ensure that the Lakeville PD gets some training before they start wandering into citizens' houses.
Let me paint a little scenario...
Cops wandering around area. They notice a door open. They investigate. They find prowler. Arrest said prowler. What statute gives them the right to enter that house and look for a prowler?
How is this make believe scenario different than the one reported? No prowler -- that is it. They thought the scene was suspicious and they went to investigate. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
I don't think an open door to a house is suspicious (and so requires no 'investigation'), it's just somebody not overwhelmed with fear - they probably just don't have a TV.
DouglasG, what makes you think that the government would be able to successfully prosecute a "prowler" they find only because they entered someone's house, without permission, because they've noticed the front door is open? Suppose the "prowler" testified he'd only entered the house because the front door was ajar, and he wanted to be sure all the residents were okay? Why would the civilian "prowler" be prosecuted and not the peace officer "prowlers"?
These hypos are just idle chatter unless someone can explain when police can legitimately enter peoples' houses without warrants.
Police officers are charged with law enforcement. They enforce the laws. There are laws against several things that citizens cannot do, but police can. It is part of their duties. They can discharge weapons within the city limits. They can exceed the posted speed limit. They can enter your house if they have a suspicion that something not right is going on. Probable cause.
Joe Schmo stranger cannot enter anyone's house to see if the owners alright because they have no reason to do so. A friend or neighbor possibly. It is up to the owner of the property to press charges on the prowler. However, law enforcement cannot be charged because they were in performance of their duties. Like it or not.
An open door is not, in and of itself a suspicious situation. If they had some reason to know or suspect that the occupant was out of town or the home is supposed to be vacant, then yes. But in this case, I'd say no.
Further, Door open tv on, even with no one in the room, is a lot less suspicious than door open, no tv on. I'll often turn my tv on, and end up going up stairs. Heck, I've even forgotten to turn the tv off and left to run an errand.
I agree that the person won't get very far in court. I doubt there's many lawyers that would touch this, and even if you somehow managed to get it before a jury, I doubt many juries are going to go against the cops here.
Max: what part of the safety check justifies looking into a car parked in the garage? that's the part that seems like a warrantless "search" to me. again, where's the justification? it's a stretch to say they invade the house in the spirit of safety-looking for signs of a wounded or injured person... but to go to the extreme of looking in windows? how many other things did they "look in to" for this mans safety? how many other checks? bullshit.
Binky, I'm pretty sure it's well within the cops' rights to simply look through windows if they don't open or touch anything, and it's often the basis of getting a search warrant.
Here's the thing, DouglasG: You're giving examples without explaining a framework that allows us compare and contrast fact patterns. And your examples themselves are problematic:
* Sure, police "can discharge weapons within the city limits" -- but only under certain circumstances. (And so can ordinary citizens, too.)
* And, yes, police "can exceed the posted speed limit" -- but they can't speed any time they feel like it.
* Finally, I have no doubt that police "can enter your house if they have a suspicion that something not right is going on" -- but the problem we're having here is defining the circumstances where entering is appropriate. Do you know what "probable cause" means?
This brings me to a synthesis of my first two comments: I believe that unless there is a specific legal justification for distinguishing between police officers and regular citizens, there is no difference between the citizen "prowler" and the police "prowler." I'd expect the prosecutor to use her discretion, of course -- declining to press charges if she believed either "prowler" was trying to help the people inside the house, prosecuting the citizen if he was really a cat burglar or the cop if he was just behaving recklessly -- but I don't think it's a good idea for us to assume that police officers are above the law.
I'm still not saying the cops weren't justified. Just that arguing whether they were or weren't w/o an analytical framework is wiggida wiggida wiggida whack.
I try to look through peoples windows as often as I can. It's a good motivator to run!
Does anyone on this site watch Law and Order? All the cops have to do is be like, "Hmm...that door is ajar, that's not normal...something could be amiss!" and they could plausibly get around the 4th amendment.
Come on people, Ice-T pulls that shit all the time on SVU!
David Caruso would just melt the door with his icy stare. After removing his sunglasses of course.
Does anyone on this site watch Law and Order? All the cops have to do is be like, "Hmm...that door is ajar, that's not normal...something could be amiss!" and they could plausibly get around the 4th amendment.
Come on people, Ice-T pulls that shit all the time on SVU!
Ah, but there were a couple of episodes where they did that (and both times, even rescued kidnapped women in imminent peril), and the judge bitch slapped the ADAs out of court.
David Caruso would just melt the door with his icy stare. After removing his sunglasses of course.
I thought his shtick was to dramatically put his sunglasses ON, while making some pithy quip in an emotionally dead monotone voice. Or is the monotone voice Gary Sinise's shtick?
You're partially correct. The glasses typically go on in the first scene of each show along with the pithy quip. Later, when he means business or is trying to put some moves on a lady, he'll remove said glasses. All the while his fiery red hair never moves.
Ah, but there were a couple of episodes where they did that (and both times, even rescued kidnapped women in imminent peril), and the judge bitch slapped the ADAs out of court.
But in this case they weren't busting him for anything, so what can they really say about that?
David Caruso would just melt the door with his icy stare. After removing his sunglasses of course.
Then a heel-clad Emily Proctor would waddle in and inquire as to what was amiss (in her annoying southern accent).
and a dumb faced adam rodriguez would see the light of Horatio's mentoring ways as he points out an obvious clue.
Then, a coked up Gary Dourdan stumbles over form the next set screaming "LET"S PAARTY!!"
and a dumb faced adam rodriguez would see the light of Horatio's mentoring ways as he points out an obvious clue.
But not before thinking that he saw the ghost of Rory "Speed" Cochrane (who was better in Empire Records anyway) which is why he wandered into the house on his own.
The question is whether the "totality of the circumstances" gave the officers probable cause to believe there was something really wrong. Suspicion ("it really was suspicious" the sgt said") is not enough to enter the house.
If there were enough clues that led the officers to believe there was imminent danger, they most likely would have taken certain actions that would have supported that: called for back-up, had the kids safely removed upon entry and then acted with urgency toward the owner.
Binky, I'm pretty sure it's well within the cops' rights to simply look through windows if they don't open or touch anything, and it's often the basis of getting a search warrant.
The "Plain Sight Doctrine" only applies if they haven't already blatantly violated the fourth ammendment rights of the person under scrutiny.
Once they crossed this mans threshold without a warrant, (even if they could make up their "exigent circumstances") they violated his fourth ammendment rights. To look in the garage is questionable, and most people would argue that it's over the line. To extend it to an illegal search? Bullshit. And if they're willing to violate his rights to this extreme, who says they aren't going to go a step further and open a couple drawers, maybe peek in a cupboard or two? Of course, it's just to make sure there aren't any midget burglars hiding in there, right?
As for not answering the door, how does that equal "exigent circumstances"?
If I haven't called the cops for some reason, odds are I'm not gonna answer the door to a cop... I don't want to talk to them, nor should I be compelled to without a lawyer present. (That's thanks to the fifth amendment, as well as being the gist of Miranda v. Arizona; it doesn't matter that I haven't anything wrong, whay matters is that they have no right to be in my home without a warrant.) Odds are I'm not gonna answer the door to you if you show up without calling, whether your a cop or any other average guy.
If you choose to come in without a warrant (locked door or not) I'll pity you after I've compelled you to leave.
Why three in the morning? If was that late, then the cops should had knock on the door loud enough in order for the guy to answer. Other than marching into someone's home and beam a flashlight into their faces, saying, "sorry if I woke you up darling...." is perhaps the most stupid idea I've ever heard.
Oh well....at least we have our feral youth breeding in Gloucester, MA.
The only evidence of any suspicion was an open garage door. The front door was locked and one cannot see the garage entry way door to the house from the front of the garage. The police had to enter the garage in order to see if the entry way door was open. However, even then the entry was door was shut by the police testemony. It just wasn't latched.
So, based on the only evidence of the garage door being open. They entered the house. They had no probable cause to enter the house. An open garage door does not lead to any suspicion, especially since they handed out over 1000 flyers notifying people of open garage doors. So they know this is common place.
It is not the police's job to take responcibility for other peoples behavior.
It is also impossible to see from the front door to where the children were sleeping.
What if the real story is that Troy has been in a multi year divorce case and his exwife works for the Lakeville fire department.
What if Troy's exwife was sleeping with two married fire department employee's. One being the chief of the fire department.
What if these buildings are next to each other. What if the word gets around that she is easy.
What if a Lakeville police officer get arrested less than a month ago for his porn adiction and inapropriate behavior with two seventeen year olds.
What if the exwife is sleeping with some of the police.
What if the exwife gets on the local radio show and start badmouthing Troy about putting the children at risk.
What if Troy is on the Board of directors of R-KIDS of Minnesota, who just placed an ad in the Pioneer Press about exposing Judicial corruption.
Does it change the stroy a little.
My bad in the above post. The front door was shut. Not locked.
According to Star Tribune columnist Pat Reusse, on Joe Soucheray's KSTP show (reported here), Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad is dead at age 93. If anyone hears any more about this, please comment. [Update: Star Tribune confirms.]…
The Strib does a story on salaries for the local arts community, and reveals that Guthrie Artistic Director Joe Dowling pulled in $682,229 in salary and benefits last year: Even discounting a one-time bonus of $100,000, his compensation surpassed tha…
Here is what is currently flying through the blogosphere: Andrew Zimmern Ate My Balls. Via: Almost every blog in the Twin Cities.…
Of course, we know that Minnesota is the home of the Jucy Lucy. Also the bundt cake, or, at least, the bundt pan. Pronto Pup claims to have invented the corn dog. We're reportedly the birthplace of the cosmopolitan. Cheerios comes Golden Valley, alon…
The winner of the Senate race will be abbounced tomorrow, and, with a 225 lead, the winner is expected to be Al Franken. Coleman says he'll fight, and, until the issue is settled, Franken can't be seated in Senate. Didn't Coleman make the case when h…
Finally. Something neither Wisconsin or Iowa (or Norsokota) can claim! Three people were arrested after one of them allegedly parachute jumped 32 stories off the Foshay Tower in downtown Minneapolis — and they returned to the scene to brag abo…