O.P.O.T.A. BASIC ACADEMY

1
Officer Richard Neil (retired)
Building Searches 84
2
(No Transcript)
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

7
(No Transcript)
8
SPO 1-ACTIONS WHICH AN OFFICER SHOULD NEVER TAKE
DURING A BUILDING SEARCH

• NEVER STOP 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

9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
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

12
(No Transcript)
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

15
(No Transcript)
16
HARRIS v. UNITED STATES 1990 3-part test

1. OFFICERS MUST BE LEGALLY ON THE PREMISES FROM
   WHERE THE OBSERVATION IS MADE
2. THE INCRIMINATING NATURE OF THE ITEM MUST BE
   IMMEDIATELY APPARENT
3. 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 house 2. If officers
are already lawfully 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 so long
  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

30
(No Transcript)
31
Hot Pursuit

• The concept of Hot Pursuit was established by
  case law in 1975 United 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
4
2
1
2
Side 1
38
(No Transcript)
39
The FATAL FUNNEL
40
Button Hook
41
Slicing the Pie
42
(No Transcript)
43
Slicing the Pie
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
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 SUSPECTS LOCATION
• DONT 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

50
(No Transcript)
51
Officer Richard Neil (retired)
www.officerneil.com