Police Enter Home and Search Without Permission/Warrant

Dr. Max Stone submitted the following story which took place in Imperial Beach, California.

On October 7, 2012 my wife and I had an argument while cleaning the house up and moving furniture, just before midnight. Due to our arguing and the racket from moving furniture, our neighbors downstairs called 911 and said we were fighting. Four Sheriffs showed up at my door about 10 minutes later. When they came to the door I was greeted by a Sgt F Passacacqua. She informed me that there was a report that we were arguing. I asked her if that was illegal and if I was under arrest. She said no, but requested that she come in the house to check on my wife. I said, “No, but I will get her for you.”

My wife came out and agreed that we were simply arguing but no one was hurt. She noticed that we had a playpen for the baby in the living room, so she said she needed to see the kids, which were sleeping. I told them, “I do not want you entering my home, you are not allowed to and you are not welcome.” She ignored this and pushed her way through; all other officers followed. Although they said they needed to come in to check the kids, instead they took flashlights and searched all over the house in areas that made no sense – even after they saw the kids sleeping on their beds.

I saw deputies investigating my computer desk, my kitchen and our master bedroom. The kids were sound asleep in their own rooms (obviously the kids slept through our arguing, so it couldn’t have been that bad). Also, I run my house japanese style, my kids play on the carpet sometimes, I make all guests take of shoes. Since she forced herself in (Sgt F Passacacqua), my wife made it clear that in this house you have to take of your shoes. One deputy asked me if I heard of OJ, and told me that they have to come in because OJ argued and later killed his wife (touchy subject but he did receive a not guilty verdict, so from a legal perspective the officers point made no sense).

Who knows what poison is on the heavy boot of a deputy investigating crime scenes all day. There could be blood, drugs, dirt and other unwanted contaminants left on our carpet. In addition, we found our cell phone broken on the floor after they left as if someone had stepped on it, someone that was wearing a heavy boot. I asked the Sgt for the badge number and her name as well as the rest of the deputies. She would not give me badge numbers, only first initial and last name of each deputy and sgt.

I feel like these police had no right to search my premises on the basis that we were arguing and they needed to check the kids. They found nothing because we have nothing to hide, yet they searched the surfaces and underneath areas of our entire apartment complex during their ‘child safety check.’

The sheriff names provided were:
Sgt F Passacacqua (she said she was the supervisor; she initiated the entering of my home)
Deputy J Garay
Deputy J Jackson
Dep A Elmone



  • badgeabuse

    You can start here if you like.

    If you are dissatisfied with service you have received or wish to make an allegation of misconduct against a member of the Sheriff’s Department, you may register your complaint the following ways:

    In person at any Sheriff’s facility

    By telephone or mail to the Internal Affairs Unit – (858) 974-2065
    San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
    Internal Affairs Unit
    PO Box 939062
    San Diego, CA 92193

    With the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board – (619) 238-6776
    1168 Union Street, Suite 400
    San Diego, CA 92101

  • Tom

    Let her bang on your door until her knuckles bleed. If an officer has the authority to enter without your permission they will. By opening the door it becomes far easier for the officer to make up an exigency exception the the 4th amendment, like “I observed signs of struggle in the living room” or “I smelled an odor of freshly burned marijuana.”

    Not only this by opening the door you corroborated you neighbor’s 911 call. By speaking with them you verified that a) people are present in the home b) there was loud noise and an argument, and c) there are other people present in the home unaccounted for.

    Next time

    1. Make sure your doors and windows are locked
    2. Leave a camera recording in the direction of the front door
    3. Put in some ear plugs and go to bed

    They’ll either go away completely, or try to get a warrant, or break in (“force entry” in cop speak). When they warrantlessly break into a houseful of sleeping occupants, based on an uncorroborated 911 call you have much stronger and more sympathetic civil case.

  • Tim

    Thugs with badges also did the same in our home too. Four thugs ocupied my home for four hours by flasely seizing for so long because some bitcchh called 911. They searched as they pleased in those 4 long hours and left without any arrest as there was no crime occurred in the first place. Couldn’t find a lawyer to sue the thugs within 2 years.


    These are always sticky situations. States have made domestic violence laws which hamstring police departments into doing stuff that they normally wouldn’t do. You fighting with your wife, You fighting with a female friend. Both the “same”…but different due to the law. Some departments run lights and sirens to ANY domestic situation, even if its just 2 people arguing.

    The burden of making people safe falls clearly in the lap of cops in most states, mine included.

    Is there a past history of domestic violence in the house? History of kids getting hurt? What was the report from the neighbor? What did the police hear outside your door? All important questions that I would like to know in order to pass judgement on the entry.

    Me personally. If I’ve made contact with mom and dad at the door, I would most likely be satisfied and not push the issue of going inside the house….but then again, in my state, like most others I “shall arrest” with PC for domestic. The story states that they were “moving furnature” which may be 100% true…but something I can’t see from the outside of a house.

  • shawn


    I could almost accept them checking on the kids, though if the adults seem to be handling it alright and both state it was only an argument, then the cause for domestic considerations goes out the window. And if arguing was enough, cops would need ten times the officers they have just to investigate arguments.

    But what about checking on the kids made going over the house like they had a drug warrant acceptable? They stole an opportunity to ignore the 4th yet again.

  • DKSuddeth

    @PSOSGT, how is an argument between two adults in a domestic situation considered PC for domestic assault?

  • t.

    First, before going any further, @Tom’s advice is just stupid. Depending on what is reported, and what I hear and/or observe, your failing to answer the door gives me exigent circumstances to enter by force. Constitutional all day long. Stupid advice.

    @Sgt. Has it right (as he usually does)

    @Shawn: I kinda agree…but checking in the kids safety is legal (at least where I work) and depending on what was reported, and what I heard and/or observed, I may or may not do.

    I do think the take your shoes off thing is pretty funny. Actually damn funny.

  • Yankee Fan

    Someone failing to answer the door gives you nothing. Exigent circumstances are either there or not. That is what the court has ruled. It is not based on someones desire to not answer a door. From what we read, PSOSGT has said it best. I would answer the door but you do not come in. You want in, kick the door in but answer atleast so the cops do not feel the need to do just that!

  • shawn


    @Shawn: I kinda agree…but checking in the kids safety is legal

    It is only legal of there is reasonable cause to fear for the kids’ safety. Two adults who admit to an argument and have no sign of physical attack fall far short of reasonable cause.
    The cops went in for one reason, they hoped to find something actionable. As he said, they went to the computer desk. That has nothing to do with the kids’ safety. And as the writer said, if the kids were asleep, it couldn’t have been that much of an argument. The kids were nothing but an excuse to perform an illegal search of the house. If they truly where worried about the kids, the search would have ended at seeing the kids safely asleep.

    And since you attack the libs left and right. Remember the sick phrase libs use to justify things all the time. “It’s for the children!”

  • http://yahoo larry

    Just your average run of the mill Pigs.

  • T

    YF: Wrong. The report of a fight. Hearing the fight myself. Then no answer at the door? Absolutely gives existent circumstances. The court has ruled that the police have the legal authority toque entry for exactly what is described. Many states have laws about just this type of in incident and it doesn’t violate any 4th rights. The problem with this incident would be the not leaving after the see that everyone is safe. The making sure everyone is safe isn’t any problem.

    @shawn: Like I just said, once they saw that the kids were safe…they should have left. What is “something actionable”? Does that mean looking for signs of domestic assault? And what is “reasonable cause”?
    As for your line quote. Apparently you are a fan of domestic violence and child abuse. I’m not. Me checking on the welfare and safety of kids and adults in a possible / probable domestic assault is far from meddling in school systems and checking kids lunches are far different things. I think you added that think you we’re clever. Clearly you aren’t .

  • spirit of 46

    To the author of this piece-contact the rutherfor institute for FREE legal respresentation. You can get their phone number from their website-google them.

  • Common Sense


  • Yankee Fan


    Thats a judgement call of the officer based on the circumstances of the call and what the officer hears, not that the door is shut and no one answers. You worded it in a fashion that gives the belief that the mere fact no one answers gives you exigent circumstances. You check to see everyone is safe, then leave. I know that states have some laws that may even require an arrest if it is a domestic fighting call and those have the tendancy to be a serious point for police. PSOSGT, who you agreed with said it best. I would answer the door and alleviate the offciers concerns. The exigent circumstance would be safety of an occupant of the residence, not the door closed.

  • Steve H.

    I don’t believe you unless you record all police encounters.

  • shawn


    I understood you agreed about only checking on the kids. I do believe from the description of the search, they were looking for something to arrest over. That was the goal, not the kids. You don’t search a desk for domestic violence. They were on a drug hunt without a warrant, using the kids as an excuse.
    What in that situation, no sign of struggle on the man orwoman, gives cause to invade a home out of fear for the kids? If there had been a physical sign on the woman of abuse, sure I’d be suspicious.
    But what you’re suggesting is that a couple can’t argue without it being an open invitation into someone’s home.
    My statement of “it’s for the children” wasn’t meant to be witty. It was meant to remind you that phrase is used to justify any intrusion. Authoritarians love that excuse. My argument isn’t for protecting domestic violence, it’s that the cops had nothing to justify this with. How would you like your home invaded simply because a neighbor called?

  • Steve H.

    You have two rights to record government agents when being detained. Obviously, the 1st Amendment gives you the right to collect newsworthy information about the government. If the government tries to stop you, that’s censorship and a violation of the constitutional principle of prior restraint. Second, you have the right to due process. The recording of your police encounter might be the only evidence that you have that can truthfully “testify” to the truth of the matter. Can you rely on the Leos to testify to the truth of the matter, not likely.

    And if there is any type of a chance of domestic violence, you should obtain a motion sensitive 180% video/voice surveillance “nanny” camera(s) for your home. An arrest or conviction for DV can have devastating consequences for all areas of your life, your freedom, your children, your job, everything. Protect yourself. Don’t count on law enforcement to do it for you and also talk to your neighbors and explain what’s going on and give them your cell number to call you instead of the leos. My neighbors in our condo complex are yelling at each other constantly, but I know them and the wife is just that, a yeller. So what.

  • T

    @shawn: Dude, quit reading and bie Inge what you is on this site. Arrest isn’t ” the goal”. It’s a necessary step lots of times. And where did you get that they were looking for drugs?!?? You need to understand the concept of totality of the circumstances. Reread the article. The author admits to fighting / arguing with his wife. He also talks a out making noise by moving furniture around. Now stretch and use some common sense. It’s obviously late enough at night for his kids to be in bed. He starts loudly arguing with his wife. How do we know it was loud? Neighbors could hear it. Again, late enough at night for kids to be in bed and furniture is getting moved around during a loud argue net. Hmm. Sounds like it sure could be an assault as that is what those sound like. Now the police arrive. We don’t know what they heard or saw but from the tone of the article it sounds as though the “argument” was still in progress when the police arrived so it seems pretty safe to assume that the officers heard the same thing as the complainant did. Checking on all parties inside the residence is pretty important. As I do this I and should be looking for signs of domestic violence that isn’t reported ( do just a little research and you will find that many victims of domestic violence don’t report it due to fear if more violence from their partner ). Especially in this case where the author even says that furniture was moved around. Does what I see agree with that story or does it look as though the furniture was slung around in anger? You are looking at it both too simply and as though the police have some sort of vendetta against this guy, which clearly isn’t in evidence.

  • John Q Public

    Yet another story with no cooberation.

  • Steve H.

    On a DV call, the Leos are always going to want to see the occupants of the home. Get them up if you have to, don’t let the Leos into the home but co-operate by letting them see the children are alright and they’ll talk to the parties to the complaint. But make sure you record the police encounter.


    @ Shawn There are alot more variables that go into any case. I’ve had people with visible injuries look me straight in the eye and tell me that the other person didn’t hit them. I’ve also had dv calls where there weren’t visible injuries but the place was a mess from the physical fight. In most cases if both talk to me at the door, I don’t see any injuries, neither state that there was a physical fight, and depending on what the caller reported, I’d move on.

    Where I kind of throw out the bull shit flag is this “we were moving furnature”… who the fuck moves furnature during a fight with thier wife??? BUT…. that also very much so adds weight to the possibility that the caller heard what he thought was a physical fight, much more than an arguement.

    Like I said, I’ve got a few more questions than answers on this one.

    @DK. I never said that there was enough PC for an arrest. I think you are confusing my comments on this story and my comments on the law itself as the same, as if it was applied in this situation.

  • shawn

    ” who the fuck moves furnature during a fight with thier wife??”

    What, you don’t think the frustration of moving furniture can cause tempers to flare? Especially if doing the work late because of busy schedules.
    As for the noise, unless it was Superman and Superwoman beating each other with chairs, their apparently was no sign of struggle. That would go with their story of simply moving furniture.
    I get that it would sound like a physical fight to the caller. But once the cops saw no blood, they didn’t just check the kids, they apparently examined the whole house. That is what they wanted to do.

    I get and appreciate you have either more sense, or more integrity than these guys had. I don’t believe for a second that they were really worried about the kids.

  • shawn


    I assume you’re using a smart phone to say all that, since the first part was nearly unintelligible. Smart phones aren’t.

    ” And where did you get that they were looking for drugs?!??”

    What exactly do you think they would be doing going over the entire house that way, including examining a desk, after seeing the kids were safe?

    “The author admits to fighting / arguing with his wife”
    I didn’t know that arguing was a crime. At any rate, as I said to PSOSGT, unless it was superman and superwoman fighting, obviously the loud noises weren’t them beating each other with tables and chairs.
    You said it yourself. Their story was straight, no one showed signs of injury. You’d have moved on. And moving heavy furniture is aggravating. It will cause tempers to flare, especially after a long day.
    As I said earlier, I can halfway understand checking on the kids, though it seems silly if the two obviously haven’t been beating the crap out of each other with chairs.
    But they didn’t stop at seeing the kids were fine, they went through the whole house. That’s pretty intrusive without real cause.

    I’m well aware that people often don’t report abuse. But if neither is showing signs of conflict, then either nothing happened, or neither one could take on a 3rd grader.

    “You are looking at it both too simply and as though the police have some sort of vendetta against this guy, which clearly isn’t in evidence.”
    I don’t concern myself with people’s motivations, only their actions. Often things go on where you have no known motivation. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

  • shawn


    Oh, I also get that were concerned that a kid might have been the victim from a beating from Hell. That is why I halfway understand their checking the kids.

    But still, it should have ended there, once everyone was seen unharmed.

    And you might consider that what is being taken as a loud argument might simply be poor soundproofing in the apartment. As was said, the kids slept through this. That would also account for the moving of furniture sounding loud.

  • Yankee Fan

    In the honor of this story, I found this on the Carlos Miller site.

    Look at the commments of poster, Johnny law. and see what he says about this bullshit and the exigency aspect.

    His first comment:
    We are allowed to go in to check the welfare of the residents if we get a call of an assault. However it really looks like the officers rushed it. The female party came outside when she saw the officers and she didn’t look in distress (until she was pulled outside).

    I would have just questioned both parties to make sure they were okay. Putting the guy on his knees and pointing an AR at him seems way too heavy. If one of the officers on my shift did that, I would have a lot of questions for him on why he handled it that way. I’ve dealt with lots of domestic disturbance calls and I’ve never done it like that before.

    A random comment:
    Two people were removed from the house and checked. The guy answered that there was no one else in the home. Absent some other independent evidence that someone else was in the home relevant to a welfare investigation, I don’t see how the entrance can be stretched as exigency.

    The cops are clearly depending on exigency here though. They are quite aware that this hypothetical “warrant requirement” does indeed exist; contrasting their original reasoning for entering the home.

    1.) The cops are absolutely going to try and put exigency in their defense.
    2.) I don’t see exigent circumstances for the house search under any circumstances here.

    Looks like the coppers got themselves some paid administrative leave.

    Johnny laws response:
    I have to agree here. They made contact with both occupants and I don’t see the need to search the house or put the guy on his knees. And I have never ever seen anyone bring an AR-15 to the door in a domestic disturbance before.

    Hate to say it but this was a bad deal.

  • t.

    YF: What ?!?,? What does any of that have to do with any of this? Is that supposed to be the same story?

    But, that aside… AR at the door? Maybe. Never seen that but have seen, and have taken lots of shotguns. If you have a patrol rifle but no shotgun, sure, bring it.

    I relatively recently arrested a guy for a domestic assault. Woman had apparent, fresh injuries. Wouldn’t tell me he had hit her. State law allows / mandates that an arrest be made.She just wouldn’t say it. 2 days later she had a miscarfiage , most likely from that assault. But she wouldn’t say he hit her. That’s the real world. Its not just some game dude. Real people getting really hurt.


    @shawn. Well, in my house, the wife says move this here…and I move the couch!!! No arguement needed. I agree with you though that what you say is a possibility. A part of my job is not to dismiss or make up other plausable reasons for a report. To “explain away” stuff if you will. It’s pretty much the opposite. In stead of dismissing everyone one by 1, we add them up.

    An example. I stop a car. I see rolling papers on the seat. Cigar inerts in the ash tray. Visine eye stuff in the cup holder. 30 tree air freshoners hanging from the cigarette lighter. We don’t explain away each item, we add them up to tell us that they smoke dope. The majority of the time we are right and there are the other times where there is a legitamite reason for each thing. Does that help explain my point?

  • Yankee Fan

    Does it need to have a point? I thought it was an interesting coincidence, especially more so since another cop was posting there who had a response similiar to PSOSGT on another story. The whole point of a DV call and the police using that exigent circumstance to go in and “search” to see if everyone is ok only to declare they need a warrant when they find what they thought drugs. I think the question is difrected back at you…do you have the attitude of…if the courts say I can do something, I should? I guess if I had a point that would be it, T.

    No, it is not the same story from reading the details. It is a different one and as I stated above…I found it to be coincidental at the least. I also didnt have an issue with the cops checking because there is always some litigious asshole looking to see if the cops do not do enough. There is a difference between talking to the occupants and seeing whats up without needing to enter vs. you deciding you want to do a walk through which can be used an excuse to do a plain view search for contraband. You can believe that no way cops do that but in the story I linked, It looks like they were doing exactly that.

  • Yankee Fan

    And yes, I do know sometimes state laws require an arrest. I mentioned that. These are dangerous calls for police and it should be in their best interest aftermaking sure everyone is on the level and the issue doesn’t need to be pushed…to leave and say have a nice night and behave as opposed to deciding you want to walk through a house just because.

  • t.

    Plain view is …. well, its PLAIN VIEW. If I am inside anyplace, house, garage, business, yard…and I see something in plain view I can seize that item. I can then “siezie” the place to secure that there is no loss or destruction of evidence, and then I DO have to get either consent or a warrant to search further (btw, I never understand why, when I’ve already found and seized the incriminating evidence, why people want to demand that I go get a warrant…like I’m not going to get one when it is supported by the evidence that I already have…bad t.v. learning). But back to this incident, with the totality of the circumstances described here, the officers did what they should have. If I hear what is described here, and see furniture slung around (sorry, MOVED around), and I’ve heard the heated argument and its not just about how heavy the couch is, and I have a good reason to beleive that there is more to the story than just arguing about the couch, and there is evidence of others (children or adult) inside that maybe be in danger…I mostly likely will check. If the place is in disarray (as described here) I likely will look around while I’m there for other signs of domestic violence. Things such as broken furniture phones and other items, maybe scattered papers the may have been thrown (phone records that were found by a spouse that show someone is having an affair). I’m looking for signs of VIOLENCE. I don’t care about your affair. I’m not there looking to make an arrest that doesn’t need to be made. I’m not just trolling for drug info. Not everyone does drugs. The ones who do usually stand out and are easily discovered.

    Cops tend to be nosy by nature. Kinda goes with this work. I think you are looking for monster in an empty closet.

  • illiterate PSOSGT


    Another great example of why people hate the cops so much. Not only can’t this piece of crap spell, with spell check, but he entertains the delusional thoughts of thinking he is somewhat intelligent. When only the latter fact of the opposite reality is exhibited.

    “thier”, “arguement” (3+ times) , “furnature” ?

    Another exemplary example of why so many cops are hated, and do nothing but cause shame to THEIR profession and colleagues. Your parents must be proud of your High School Diploma (or GED), and your criminal justice courses. Laugh.

    You’re correct, nobody moves “furnature” in the middle of the night. But some people do move furniture, and as far as I know there is no law against it.

    Go back to school, you’re a worthless waste of space on this planet.

  • Yankee Fan


    When I see videos of police pulling peeps over on the highly subjective charge of weaving in their lane, question them about any contraband they may have, use a dog to sniff around then it alerts to nothing…well, sometimes that monster is there huh?

    What you describe would be in your own judgement, a reason to push the issue and I dont have an issue with that. If you read your cop buddy, PSOSGT, he stated he wouldnt and I suspect it is because how touchy these situations can be. You do realize that even your rpesence there can exaberate the situation further, which is why cops should use discretion on handling these DV calls. Push the issue by looking around if your senses tell you. Intervene to keep someone safe but if it looks clean, why fuck with peeps because the law/courts say you can. I do believe there are police that do that. You do not need lecture me on plain view which is self descriptive.

    The reason I linked thatas tory was because after the cop made the warrant comment, I believed their main reason for being there was to do a plain view to look for contraband extra to the DV call. Not respond to the call and if they see anything, grab it and the warrant comment was interesting enough to cause that police poster there to agree in a sense those cops fucked up. See how that one incident can cause reasonable peeps to question the way police do their work in that regard and yes I will say that I do believe police who do what they did are using exigency to do a plain view search, especially if they go room to room looking every nook and cranny in plain view.

    I will say it again, I agree with the way PSOSGT put it because he method would not have escelated an already volitile situation to even more dangerous levels. Meet and greet be satisfied with what you see and move on. If not push it and do what you need to do!

  • illiterate PSOSGT

    Another non publishable comment? Why am I still awaiting moderation, meanwhile posts after mine have been approved?

    I guess those 500 comments the other night were not enough for you huh?

  • t.

    You’re comparing apples and jelly donuts. Vehicle stops, vehicle interdiction, while different in from each other are so far apart and so different from a DV call as the really can’t be put in the same conversation..

    I didn’t follow your link to watch the video, just read what you wrote. (I try, mostly in vain, to stay with the article I’m commenting under and the “facts” and information it contains).

    As for this incident. You’re right. Like I (and @Sgt) said, its the totality of the circumstances. I try and see it as described. If they answer the door and the just the couch is askew and the information that they give you, and what I heard, and what I see both inside the residence (even just from the door) and the appearance and demeanor of the parties I’m talking to. It alladds up. Or if there iisn’t anything, it doesn’t add up. The dangerous and foolish games that @Ed and @Tom want to play makes it very dangerous.

    Back to the vehicle stops. Yes….sometimes officers do it wrong. Feel better? But that rare. The videos posted here and elsewhere that claim to show the officers doing it wrong…simple don’t in nearly all cases. Same thing with the dog videos. And, its totality of the circumstances. Way back before I was the police, I got stopped bunchies of times. Funny thing is, the officer never called out a dog. Wonder why. Hmm. Oh, its probably because I not a sketchy guy doing sketchy stuff in the sketchy part of town. I wasn’t giving the clues that interdiction officers are looking for. Oh, that and I didn’t smoke, possess or transport dope. Just because there isn’t dope in the car, doesn’t mean the dog was wrong. We don’t run a dog around every car we stop. Totality of the circumstances. The ones we check, are due to other factors / indicators of criminal behavior.

  • illiterate PSOSGT

    I know they need all the posts in the the world to defend their illegal actions, and misguided interpretation of the law. But it surely seems more and more to me, disgusting, illiterate, ignorant pigs are being more and more ‘babied’ on this site. Why are you giving them just what they crave? It’s blatantly obvious, and even more sickening so called ‘activists’ encourage and promote it. We all know why they are here, because they hate freedom of speech, the 1st amendment, and being powerless to control everyone’s thoughts and words.

    Yet your ridiculous moderation, more than condones it.
    Perhaps a change of name to “” would suit your site better?

  • Yankee Fan

    There was no comparison. I used that to illustrate how we do view you as monsters sometimes with the bullshit you try and run at us. Just like you guys use your senses, training and etrc to detect bullshit. We use them to. In this story I did not have an issue with them as I would have looked aroun d to ensure I was satisfied that all were safe. I linked that other story because it fit with what we were discussing here and from my own chair the police used that exigency to do a plain view search and it seemed to be confirmed by the cop mentioning warrant. Thats odd and tells me even he knew they were at a stretch to justify a full plain view search.

    As far as your feel better comment. It not they get it wrong, it is they are fishing for a reason. Getting it wrong is the wrond address in a raid thats different than stopping someone for some subjective reason and forgetting why you stopped them onlyu to focus on if they had or have money, drugs and looking for some reason to justify a search.

    As far as sketchy, that video we saw on ehre of those college kids that had their car searched based on the wrongful detection of a dog that found nothing. Either they were dopers or the cop/dog was wrong. I know what you think. Same with that video that guy made of his stop with that questionable cop. Stopped for being out of state, weaving in his lane, has something old on his record so he must be Pablo Escobars lost drug mule huh? And just because a dog alerts doesnt mean there was something there. Go look at the current studies on this phenomenon and its clear dogs get it wrong way more than they get it right.

    As far as those games they play, I do not agree and I bet we agree more than you think. I will question things where I see them . Cops doing a look around at a DV call is justified and in fact I would be mad if they didnt.

  • Yankee Fan

    I meant to say at the end I do not agree with their dangerous games you describe. The advice that is given is sometimes really bad and the stories are as equally bad but lets not pretend that police or a bunch of princes. I could spend an hour writing about many departments as a whole where they have been causing issues to their civilian population they serve and protect

  • calm the f*ck down

    calm down you f*cking grammar nazi