Cops Illegally Raid The Wrong House And REFUSE To Leave

foreign [Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers voluntariness consent searches and anonymous tips and is brought To Us by Lance Thorton's Channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve before we dive into the interaction I want to give a big thanks to the sponsor of this episode Babel spring is here and now is the time to step out of your hibernation den and get ready to travel immersing yourself in an unfamiliar culture is one of the most rewarding and enlightening experiences that you can have and knowing another language opens the door to so many opportunities for personal growth and development learning a new language has helped me connect with creators and brands from all over the world and establish new relationships that I wouldn't have been able to make without babbles easily digestible lessons Babel's award-winning technology is scientifically proven to help you start learning a new language in as little as three weeks utilizing short 10-minute interactive lessons developed by real language teacher not learning algorithms or AI thanks to Babel's speech recognition feature learning French has been and I'm learning new fun and practical phrases every day right now Babel is offering members of the ATA Community a 60 discount when you click on the link in the description with a 20-day money-back guarantee you have absolutely nothing to lose so click on the link in the description and start your language learning Journey today thanks again to Babel for sponsoring this episode on the morning of March 12 2023 officers from the Erie Police Department SWAT team Pennsylvania State Police fugitive task force and U.S Marshals arrived at the Erie Pennsylvania home a 52 year old Lance Thornton who suffers from early onset dementia Mr Thornton's doorbell camera captured footage of the officers removing it from its installation location and throwing it into Mr Thornton's yard after which the officers knocked on the door when Mr Thornton who was sleeping at the time did not get to the door quickly enough they started to break down the door Mr Thornton came to the door before they broke it down completely and the officers asked him to step outside after explaining that he suffered from dementia Mr Thornton took out his cell phone and began to film The Encounter we're not here for you then I'm being told to put my phone down I was told I had a right to pull up that is my rental car what is going you're not allowed inside I want to know what's going on then you tell me right now no this is my house no you're gonna no that's who we're looking for are you in your house in your house right now no there's nobody in my house attempted homicide through officers okay that's why we're here we're not here for anything else we're here for that okay you got my word all right can we go in and walk to make sure he's not in there no I swear to you right now okay right now don't know like your attitude and the way you came across because I said can I pull my I'm gonna pull my phone on my pocket and they said yes when I said I'm gonna start recording you still need to turn it off I'm gonna get every one of these because I do not know what's going on here Mr homicide three officers okay a tip came in this guy is saying at your house understand over the over the weekend who are you guys with US Marshals PPD SWAT what's epd okay keep going and PSP what's PSP okay I'm shaking right now right now if this is true what you're telling me yes I give you full permission full run in my house you know this guy sir I already answered that question asked an answer there's a reason why this is called this tip is called in the Marshalls there's a connection between you and this guy that might not be directly okay do you have a girlfriend just hear him out just here my wife is a you're a Doctor Who's your wife is there another girl woman that says you're a girl no nobody else no okay my daughter okay where does she stay at she lives in Washington DC this is my daughter we don't know okay again this is a tip that's called into from from the to the U.S Marshals and PSP hotline okay saying that this guy is staying here at your house right now this week go inside guys go inside but we will a second we won't go to more than just two guys but that's why we're here with is the show for us we are who's fixing my door because you broke it the way you kicked it it's not broken I saw the inside the door yes whoever was kicking that door when I was coming downstairs peacefully you had to hear my feet coming someone's paying for this so go ahead do do your thing it's fine do your job because you had me so scared right now and so mad I appreciate that do you guys have a warrant by the way no do you have a warrant from a house I'm just asking so I know I'm giving you consent but I can draw it at any time right because I'm scared right now yep just woke up the officers informed Mr Thornton that although they do not have a search warrant for his home they can enter because they have his consent which the officers believe to be valid despite the fact that Mr Thornton informed him that he has dementia in the 1981 case of stegold versus United States the Supreme Court determined that the warrantless entry into a home to arrest a non-resident violated the Fourth Amendment despite the fact that the officers had an arrest warrant because quote absent exigent circumstances or consent an entry into a private dwelling to conduct a search or affect an arrest is unreasonable without a warrant now while the court noted that the arrest warrant would permit the officers to enter the suspect's own residence it determined that it did not authorize the officers to enter someone else's home in order to arrest the suspect when the homeowner did not consent the officers were not in Hot Pursuit Of The Suspect and no other exigent circumstances existed therefore because the officers did not have a warrant to enter Mr Thornton's residence and no exigent circumstances appeared to exist the officers could not enter Mr Thornton's home without his consent as the Supreme Court explained in the 2006 case of Georgia versus Randolph one exception to the rule prohibiting the warrantless entry of a person's house quote recognizes the validity of searches with the voluntary consent of an individual possessing Authority the Supreme Court held in the 1973 case of schneckloth versus Bustamante that quote it is only by analyzing all the circumstances of an individual consent that it can be ascertained whether in fact it was voluntary or coerced and that quote examining all the surrounding circumstances to determine if in fact the consent to search was coerced account must be taken of subtly coercive police questions as well as the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person who consents however it is important to note that when analyzing whether a consent search was given voluntarily courts focused primarily on the officer's understanding of the situation rather than whether or not the individual actually consented for instance in the 2005 case of U.S versus Guerrero the eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that quote the focus is not whether Guerrero's subjectively consented but rather whether a reasonable officer would believe consent was given in the 2020 case of U.S versus quesada Laura the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals noted that quote our cases have never required perfect mental ability to find a consent to search was voluntary and ultimately determined that a consent research was valid despite an individual's dementia because quote the extent of his impairment at the time of his consent to search was not severe and the Agents involved in obtaining the consent testified that quote no aspect of the dysfunction was apparent to them so based on this precedent it seems most probable that a court would determine that the officers reasonably believed Mr Thornton's consent was voluntary based on his demeanor and apparent understanding of the situation and his rights however the officers were on notice that Mr Thornton suffered from dementia and he repeated he stated that he was scared and confused so it is also possible that a court could conclude that his consent was not effective although given the low standard required to prove voluntariness this outcome seems unlikely ambulances a SWAT truck lots of cars and a root officer what's the relationship with my daughter I'll explain I'm not with this going on okay why this is this is total transparency because I'm just giving you permission to walk into my house I can I can withdraw it right now so you tell me now where I would draw I'm going to draw on this consent sirs get out of my house I'm withdrawn consent I am your drawing consent do you now hear it you're on camera they're still moving forward they're still going in I withdrew my consent you guys even though I could do it they're still searching I already called them out you can't go back and forth saying you let us in you don't want to say I said can I withdraw consent and you said yes on camera yes you can yes and I did it not just redraw it so here's I'm telling you what's going on right now they're doing an illegal search in the house I have Alzheimer's I have dementia right now and I'm really scared okay well there's no reason he's scared we're not here I told him to stop the consent until I got the truth and you already told them it is still searching my house here's the thing I have enough security cameras under their own Square they heard me your drug consent and they're still continuing in there after I withdrew it Mr Thornton argues that the officers are searching his home illegally because they continue to search after he withdrew his consent the Supreme Court has not expressly established that an individual May withdraw consent to search that they have voluntarily given however in the 1980 Case of Walter versus United States the court explained that quote when an official search is properly authorized whether by consent or by the issuance of a valid warrant the scope of the search is limited by the terms of its authorization and in the 1991 case of Florida versus jimeneo it stated that quote a suspect May of course delimit as he chooses the scope of the search to which he consents based in part on this precedent the third Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania held in the 2018 case of United States versus Williams that the subject of a consensual search May terminate the search by withdrawing their consent noting that quote our sister circuits that have considered whether individuals may withdraw consent to search have unanimously answered in the affirmative and citing decisions from the 6th 7th 8th and 9th circuits recognizing the right to withdraw consent the third circuit also clarified that once an individual has voluntarily consented to a search they can only withdraw their consent through quote an act or statement that an objective viewer would understand as an expression of his desire to no longer be searched here Mr Thornton unequivocally revoked his consent by explicitly stating that he was withdrawing his consent multiple times and a court would almost certainly determine that the officers violated the fourth amendment by continuing to search his home after hearing these statements because I want the truth I told you the truth what do you mean I'm not telling you the truth let me let me finish and I apologize I'm getting frustrated I'm standing out here in the cold in pajamas I say said can I reach in my pocket I'm gonna grab my phone yes and I was told yes and then I said I'm gonna start recording and then I started hearing officers tell me no put the phone away I'm not allowed to record I have all this going on and then they still continue to go through there after known right now they're doing an illegal search here's the thing I radioed to them to tell them to stalk I stood right here they stared at me when I told them I would draw consent so right now my my fourth amendment is being violated it says like I told you this has to do with a wanted person you've wanted for attention right we received a tip through Crime Stoppers regarding this okay and then the tip said that that person was at your residence for the from this weekend the officers informed Mr Thornton that they received an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip that the suspect was staying at Mr Thornton's house and that the tip was the basis for their search in the 1983 case of Illinois versus Gates the Supreme Court held that when determining whether an anonymous tip gives rise to the probable cause necessary to issue a warrant courts must apply a totality of the circumstances analysis that considers an informant so-called veracity reliability and basis of knowledge in reaching this conclusion the court reasoned that quote informants tips doubtless come in many shapes and sizes from many different types of persons and quote informants tips like all other Clues and evidence coming to a policeman on the scene may vary greatly in their value and reliability applying this precedent to a Terry stop the Supreme Court concluded in the 1990 case of Alabama versus white that because quote an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informs spaces of knowledge or veracity and given that quote the veracity of persons supplying anonymous tips is by hypothesis largely unknown and unknowable an uncorroborated anonymous tip standing alone quote would not warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a stop was appropriate although the court clarified that quote this is not to say that an anonymous caller could never provide the Reasonable Suspicion necessary for a Terry stop it also noted that quote some tips completely lacking in indicia of reliability would either warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized based on the information available it seems highly likely that a court would conclude that the Crime Stoppers tip alone did not give the officers the probable cause they needed to obtain a warrant to search Mr Thorton's home or even Reasonable Suspicion for that matter as the anonymous tipster seemed to Simply assert that the suspect was staying there without any additional information that could be used to assess The credibility of the tip in fact in an interview with the real News Network about the incident Mr Thornton reported that the officers had applied for a warrant before coming to his home and it was denied by the judge for a lack of probable cause right now there's an illegal search going on in my house that's what I care about because I wanted them out I totally respect your position I'm totally respect what you're doing I know you guys are scared you guys somebody wanted but I do not understand the show force and the aggressiveness towards me because this is my home I gave you my mental condition and you guys still are doing this seeing they're upstairs now you said they're on their way out after completing their search at Mr Thornton's home and not finding the suspect the officers eventually left according to a GoFundMe campaign started by Mr Thornton's daughter as a result of the officer's actions Mr Thornton's front door could not be securely shut or locked and his doorbell camera was broken the GoFundMe also reports that the carpet in two bedrooms was ruined by a dark substance a book like paint or tar that seemed to have been tracked in on one of the officer's shoes following the interaction Mr Thornton filed a request for the body camera footage and other material related to the interaction but his request was denied after a lengthy exchange with the Pennsylvania State Police who directed Mr Thornton to file his request with the U.S Marshal Services as they were the lead Authority on the scene at the time as of the writing of this episode Mr Thornton has not received any body camera footage related to this incident Mr Thornton also suffered a stroke shortly after this encounter which he believes to be a direct result of this interaction overall the officers get an F for destroying Mr Thornton's personal property failing to properly account for Mr Thornton's dementia diagnosis and violating the fourth amendment by continuing to search Mr Thornton's home after he withdrew the consent that was the sole basis of their authority to enter his home when reviewing this encounter it is important to keep in mind that because the officers had been denied a warrant they were engaged in what should have been a so-called consensual encounter with Mr Thornton and while the Supreme Court has held that officers may approach the door of a home and knock just as any private citizen might do the scope of this invitation clearly does not include destroying the homeowner's doorbell camera to avoid being filmed or breaking in their door if they do not respond quickly enough additionally although I cannot say for certain whether the officers were knowingly attempting to take advantage of Mr Thorton's mental state at best they ignored it along with his repeated assertions that he was confused and Afraid and continued in their Relentless pursuit of a suspect was not inside Mr Thornton's home or even known to him now while I understand the officers were hoping to find a dangerous criminal their uncompromising focus on capturing The Fugitive caused them to terrify a citizen with dementia and infringe upon his constitutional rights which is particularly egregious given the fact that Mr Thornton did not even know the man they were looking for and was certainly not harboring him in his home this interaction demonstrates how officers can trample on the rights of innocent citizens when they are more concerned with results rather than abiding by the limitations the Constitution places on their Authority as for Mr Thornton I cannot rightfully assign a grade to a man with dementia who was simply the victim of police overreach while the courts may not recognize the Mr Thornton's dementia rendered his consent involuntary I am certain that his condition made this interaction incredibly challenging to navigate and as he repeatedly informed the officers confusing and frightening that being said there were many any things that Mr Thornton did right in this encounter despite his diagnosis and I want to commend him for his attempts to defend his fourth amendment rights however fruitless they ultimately proved as well as his choice to film the interaction and share it with the public on YouTube I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage him to continue to advocate for his constitutional rights by filing complaints and pursuing a lawsuit against the officers and agencies involved in this encounter let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] thank you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 1,782,261

Keywords: amagansett press, first amendment audit, 1st amendment audit, auditing america, news now california, sgv news first, high desert community watch, anselmo morales, photography is not a crime, san joaquin valley transparency, first amendment audit fail, walk of shame, news now houston, police fail, 1st amendment audit fail, public photography, auditor arrested, police brutality, highdesert community watch, pinac news, cops triggered, news now patrick, east hampton

Id: rZIej6X4fnM

Length: 18min 40sec (1120 seconds)

Published: Mon May 29 2023