Officer Richard Neil (retired)

1. Officer Richard Neil (retired) Building Searches 8:4

3. Police officers make building searches on a routine basis and for a variety of reasons • Prowler calls • Burglary • Alarm drops • Buildings found open on patrol • Residence and business checks for homeowners or business owners

4. Building searches can be dangerous • They can become routine •  They can be performed too quickly •  They can be performed haphazardly • Due to time restraints •  Insufficient number of officers to conduct the search

5. Whether an officer thinks a suspect is in the building or not, the search should always be conducted as if a suspect were in the structure!

6. Building Searches • There are no guarantees •  Never become complacent •  Searching a building is a practiced skill •  Use every opportunity to practice the skill •  Work with your partner to develop cohesion

8. SPO #1-ACTIONS WHICH AN OFFICER SHOULD NEVER TAKE DURING A BUILDING SEARCH • NEVERSTOP IN DOORWAYS • NEVER LINGER IN AN OPEN AREA OR LONG HALL • NEVER BACK-LIGHT YOURSELF OR YOUR PARTNER • NEVER LEAD THE WAY WITH YOUR FIREARM • NEVER MOVE ANY FASTER THAN YOU CAN SHOOT ACCURATELY

11. SPO #2-ACTIONS WHICH AN OFFICER SHOULD TAKE DURING A BUILDING SEARCH • USE AVAILABLE COVER • MOVE FROM COVER TO COVER • BE AWARE OF SHADOWS AND REFLECTIONS THAT INDICATE YOUR PRESENCE • SEARCH A ROOM THOROUGHLY • BE READY WITH YOUR FIREARM

13. SPO #3-FOUR CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR SUCCESSFUL SEARCHES • HOW AND WHEN MOVEMENT IS TO BE MADE • USE OF AVAILABLE SPACE • COVER AND CONCEALMENT • AWARENESS AND OBSERVATION

14. Search and Seizure Considerations Related to Building Searches • Plain View •  Exigent Circumstances •  Hot Pursuit

16. HARRIS v. UNITED STATES 1990 3-part test • OFFICERS MUST BE LEGALLY ON THE PREMISES FROM WHERE THE OBSERVATION IS MADE • THE INCRIMINATING NATURE OF THE ITEM MUST BE IMMEDIATELY APPARENT • OFFICERS MUST HAVE A LAWFUL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE OBJECT

17. 1. Officers who observe marijuana growing in a window of a house while they are legally standing on the sidewalk have no right to make a warrantless entry into the house2. If officers are alreadylawfully present in the house and could see the marijuana from their location, they could seize the marijuana

18. Exigent Circumstances • Warrantless search of premises is legal solong as officers know that suspects are in the process of destroying evidence or contraband • However, even if the officer is justified in entering premises, an extensive search should not be conducted without a warrant • Secure the premises, persons involved, and a search warrant

19. Brigham City v. Stuart126 S. Ct. 1943 (2006) • Police officers responded to a complaint regarding a loud party at a residence. At the scene, they heard shouting from inside and observed juveniles drinking alcohol in the backyard. The officers went into the backyard and observed a physical disturbance occurring in the kitchen of the home. A juvenile suspect punched an adult victim in the face. • An officer opened the screen door to the kitchen and announced his presence, though nobody noticed.

20. Brigham City v. Stuart126 S. Ct. 1943 (2006) • The officer entered the kitchen and again stated his presence, at which time the altercation ceased. The officers arrested several adults for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, disorderly conduct, and intoxication. • ISSUE: Whether the officers may gain access to the premises under the emergency scene exception if their subjective intent was to enter for the purposes of affecting an arrest?

21. Brigham City v. Stuart126 S. Ct. 1943 (2006) • USSC Held: The officers‘ subjective intent for entering the premises is irrelevant. • The Court, therefore, held that ―”law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.”

22. Brigham City v. Stuart126 S. Ct. 1943 (2006) • It therefore does not matter here--even if their subjective motives could be so neatly unraveled--whether the officers entered the kitchen to arrest respondents and gather evidence against them or to assist the injured and prevent further violence. • The test is “objectively reasonable”, not subjective!

23. MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009 • Police officers responded to a complaint of a disturbance • A couple directed them to a residence where a man was "going crazy" • Officers found a household in considerable chaos: a pickup truck in the driveway with its front smashed, damaged fence posts along the side of the property, and three broken house windows, the glass still on the ground outside

24. MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009 • Officers also noticed blood on the hood of the pickup and on clothes inside of it, as well as on one of the doors to the house • Through a window, the officers could see respondent, Jeremy Fisher, inside the house, screaming and throwing things. The back door was locked, and a couch had been placed to block the front door.

25. MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009 • They saw that Fisher had a cut on his hand, and they asked him whether he needed medical attention. Fisher ignored these questions and demanded, with accompanying profanity, that the officers go to get a search warrant • Officer Goolsby then pushed the front door partway open and ventured into the house. Through the window of the open door he saw Fisher pointing a long gun at him. Officer Goolsby withdrew

26. MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009 • Fisher was charged under Michigan law with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony • "searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable" • However, law enforcement officers "may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury."

27. MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009 • This "emergency aid exception" does not depend on the officers' subjective intent or the seriousness of any crime they are investigating when the emergency arises • It requires only "an objectively reasonable basis for believing“ that "a person within [the house] is in need of immediate aid"

28. MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009 • It would be objectively reasonable to believe that Fisher's projectiles might have a human target (perhaps a spouse or a child), or that Fisher would hurt himself in the course of his rage. • In short, we find it as plain here as we did in Brigham City that the officer's entry was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

29. MICHIGAN v. FISHER, 2009 • Officers do not need ironclad proof of "a likely serious, life-threatening" injury to invoke the emergency aid exception. • Moreover, even if the failure to summon medical personnel conclusively established that Goolsby did not subjectively believe, that Fisher or someone else was seriously injured (which is doubtful), the test, as we have said, is NOT what Officer Goolsby believed, but whether there was "an objectively reasonable basis for believing" that medical assistance was needed, or persons were in danger

31. Hot Pursuit • The concept of Hot Pursuit was established by case law in 1975United States v. Santana • Officers attempted warrantless felony arrest of Ms. Santana in a public place •  She ran into her house to escape them • They followed her into the house and affected the arrest •  Court held that as the arrest process began in a public place the officers were in Hot Pursuit as they entered the house

32. Limitations exist, depending on the situation • Hot pursuit is terminated when officer breaks off pursuit and waits for back-up • In STATE V. HABLUTZEL , the officer attempted to arrest on a misdemeanor in the hallway of an apartment •  The suspect ran inside the apartment •  The officer waited for several minutes for back-up before entering the apartment

33. Safety Factors to be Considered Prior to Making a Building Search • Advise the dispatcher that you will be entering the building to search •  Turn your radio off - containment will be your communication • Maintain noise discipline by securing keys, change, pens, badges, etc. • Remember disadvantages of wearing your hat

34. Safety Factors to be Considered Prior to Making a Building Search • Have a functional flashlight, even for daytime searches • Check other necessary equipment •  Mirrors, Rope or bungee cord to tie doors open • Choose a safe entry point - broken windows should be avoided

35. 3 4 2 1

36. 3 4 2 1

37. 6 7 8 9 10 3 5 1 2 4 2 Side 1

39. The “FATAL FUNNEL”

40. Button Hook

41. Slicing the Pie

43. Slicing the Pie

44. 60% MINIMUM MOVE HARD TO CORNER PAST CENTER ROOM

46. SPO #4-THREE MAIN REASONS FOR USING COVER DURING A BUILDING SEARCH • TO EVALUATE THE SITUATION • TO DETERMINE THE IDENTITY OF THE SUSPECT, CIVILIANS AND FELLOW OFFICERS • FOR SELF-PROTECTION

47. TACTICAL SUGGESTIONS • USE COVER WHENEVER POSSIBLE • SELECT COVER CAREFULLY • NEVER CHANGE YOUR COVER FOR SAKE OF CHANGING • SELECT NEXT POSITION BEFORE YOU MOVE • NEVER MOVE FROM COVER WITH A PARTIALLY LOADED WEAPON, RELOAD BEFORE YOU MOVE

48. TACTICAL SUGGESTIONS • WHEN SHOOTING FROM COVER, UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENYOURSELF, YOUR COVER, YOUR WEAPON, AND SUSPECT’S LOCATION • DON’T USE COVER FOR SUPPORT • FIRE AND LOOK AROUND THE COVER, NOT OVER THE COVER

49. TACTICAL SUGGESTIONS • DO NOT LOOK OR FIRE FROM COVER IN THE SAME POSITION MORE THAN ONCE • DO NOT EXPOSE YOURSELF ANY MORE THAN NECESSARY • WHEN SHOOTING FROM THE WEAK SIDE OF YOUR COVER, USE WEAK SIDE TECHNIQUES, NOT STRONG SIDE