Rights if a Police Officer Stops at Public Storage Unit

[Concerned2012]

My question involves police conduct in the State of: Kansas

Yesterday I was stopped at my storage unit by the police officer. Was about 3PM and he came
walking around the side of the building to the unit. He approached me. I said Hello and he
proceeded to ask me if that was my unit. I said yes. Then he asked me if he could look inside
(I pulled the door down as he approached). I said No. He then told me that he had "a complaint"
and if I did not open the unit he would arrest me on the complaint. We talked back and forth
a bit.

What are my rights in such a situation? If the unit is not open can he open the door without
my permission?

I didn't open the unit because frankly, the police around here trample over people's civil rights.
I'm black and the officer was white. There was nothing illegal in my unit, but like I said, my rights are above whatever games they play with people around here.

[antrc170]

You are not required to open the storage unit for inspection. If the police feel that they have probable cause to arrest you and search the premise, don't physically fight them, wait until court.

[Concerned2012]

You are not required to open the storage unit for inspection. If the police feel that they have probable cause to arrest you and search the premise, don't physically fight them, wait until court.

I didn't fight them. The police around here push their way around with people (especially black/Hispanic/etc.)
What I'm trying to understand is my rights while I'm here. The law is not the same (as a home).
Do they need to get a search warrant to go through my storage unit?
What should I have said to the officer to assert my rights? Nicely.

[jk]

What I'm trying to understand is my rights while I'm here. The law is not the same (as a home).

really? the unit is considered your property just as your home is. For a cop to enter, they need either a warrant or probable cause and exigent circumstances.

so, since the cop was threatening to arrest you if you did not comply, did you either comply or was arrested?

[Concerned2012]

really? the unit is considered your property just as your home is. For a cop to enter, they need either a warrant or probable cause and exigent circumstances.

so, since the cop was threatening to arrest you if you did not comply, did you either comply or was arrested?

I answered his questions (reluctantly) but did not open the unit.

[jk]

and I presume you were not arrested?

What was the claimed complaint he was responding to?

If he had a valid complaint, what he can do is greater than if he simply stopped by to check on what you were doing.

[PTPD22]

[QUOTE=jk;583210]really? the unit is considered your property just as your home is. For a cop to enter, they need either a warrant or probable cause and exigent circumstances.QUOTE]

Not exactly true. A residence does have some greater protections against government intrusion than other property, especially under some state constitutions (as opposed to federal 4th amendment). And, no, the police do not have to have probable cause AND exigent circumstances...the correct word there is OR. They can also enter with consent, to perform a "community caretaking" function, and some other narrowly defined reasons.

But, to the OP...The police do not necessarily have to have a warrant to search your storage unit. As I said to jk, they can do so with a few different, narrowly defined circumstances. To assert your rights (nicely), say "If you feel that you have a legal reason to search without my consent, I will not resist you doing so. However, I am not giving you consent." Then, if the officer searches anyway, DO NOT RESIST (even with "aggressive" demeanor or language), just maintain your composure and cool. If the officer finds something of a criminal nature, let your attorney handle the search in court. If the officer does not find anything, document his name (or at least the unit number or license plate number of his patrol car) and date/time/location. And PROMPTLY file a complaint with the department. This means a formal complaint where you come in an write a statement, not just calling up and complaining to the dispatcher/supervisor/detective/chief of police/god. In that statement, explain the circumstances and why you feel that the officer did not have legal justification to search, in detail.

Just out of curiosity, did the officer ever tell you the nature of the "complaint" he was investigating?

[jk]

Not exactly true. A residence does have some greater protections against government intrusion than other property, especially under some state constitutions (as opposed to federal 4th amendment). And, no, the police do not have to have probable cause AND exigent circumstances...the correct word there is OR. They can also enter with consent, to perform a "community caretaking" function, and some other narrowly defined reasons.

no, the correct word is not OR.

Without PC, they cannot enter regardless of the exigency. You need to understand that the exigent circumstances themselves may be the PC but you must have PC none the less. And without exigency, they must obtain a search warrant prior to a entry unless allowed to enter.

Not exactly true. A residence does have some greater protections against government intrusion than other property, especially under some state constitutions (as opposed to federal 4th amendment).

the 4th is enough. Cop cannot enter without a warrant or PC and exigency. A state cannot provide a lesser protection than the 4th and be meaningful.

[PTPD22]

I apologize to the OP, as this response is completely irrelevant to his questions. However, jk, you have some credibility on these threads as your posts are usually factual and helpful (at least those that I have read). So, I really would not like that credibility to influence an uninformed reader to rely on your mistaken statements above.

PC and exigent circumstances are two completely different and unrelated legal concepts. PC is probable cause to believe that a CRIME has been committed. Exigent circumstances, on the other hand, are circumstances of an emergent nature which would cause a reasonable person to fear that a person's safety is in danger (in some states, danger of significant property damage also applies). Police may legally enter an otherwise protected area to investigate EITHER circumstance...both need not be present simultaneously.

For example, if a person calls 911 and says they are having a heart attack, the police may well arrive before medics. If, when they knock on the door, there is no answer, the police may lawfully enter to search for the person whom they believe may be suffering from a medical emergency. They would be entering to render aid, NOT to investigate a crime. There would be no reason to even suspect a crime, let alone have probable cause. However, if while searching for the medical emergency, they did discover evidence of a crime, that discovery would be legally admissible as evidence. They had a legal reason for entering (exigent circumstances), even though NO crime was initially suspected and NO PC existed.

Alternatively, say the police discover the door to a business kicked in at 3:00 am. That would give them probable cause to believe that a burglary was being or had been committed. There would be NO exigent circumstances as there would be no reason to believe that any innocent person would be present in the business at 3:00 am (presuming normal business hours and not a 24 hr establishment). Despite the absence of exigent circumstances, the police may lawfully enter to search for the perpetrators of the burglary that they have probable cause to believe is or has occurred. Again, since they had a lawful reason to enter and search (probable cause), any evidence of criminal activity they discover will be legally admissible in court even in the complete absence of any exigent circumstances.

So, as you can see, OR is the correct word, not AND. Police may enter and search for EITHER PC or exigent circumstances, they need NOT both be present simultaneously.

And, no, a state cannot provide lesser protection against government intrusion that that guaranteed by the US Constitution. However, a state constitution CAN provide MORE protection than the US Constitution. And, some states DO provide a greater protection with regards to a residence than the US Constitution provides regarding private property in general. And, the USSC has issued opinions that, in certain circumstances, also provides greater protection with regards to a residence than other forms of property (for example a business or a vehicle). So, for you to imply, with broad brush strokes, that there is no difference is incorrect.

[jk]

=PTPD22;585527]

PC and exigent circumstances are two completely different and unrelated legal concepts. PC is probable cause to believe that a CRIME has been committed. Exigent circumstances, on the other hand, are circumstances of an emergent nature which would cause a reasonable person to fear that a person's safety is in danger (in some states, danger of significant property damage also applies). Police may legally enter an otherwise protected area to investigate EITHER circumstance...both need not be present simultaneously.

for the police to enter; yes they do. Let me explain since you seem to have a very closed mind.

If the police walked by a storage unit and realized there was water running from under the door, there would be exigent circumstances. So, based on your interpretation, the police could now enter the unit sans warrant. The problem: those exigent circumstances, in themselves, are not of the sort that would allow the police to enter without a warrant.

Just the same: if the police were told by a dependable informant that there was stolen merchandise within the unit, the police now have probable cause to obtain a warrant BUT they do not have adequate justification to enter the unit without a warrant because there are no exigent circumstances.

That is a very simple explanation as to why you need both exigent circumstances AND PC to enter a unit without a warrant.

For example, if a person calls 911 and says they are having a heart attack, the police may well arrive before medics. If, when they knock on the door, there is no answer, the police may lawfully enter to search for the person whom they believe may be suffering from a medical emergency. They would be entering to render aid, NOT to investigate a crime. There would be no reason to even suspect a crime, let alone have probable cause. However, if while searching for the medical emergency, they did discover evidence of a crime, that discovery would be legally admissible as evidence. They had a legal reason for entering (exigent circumstances), even though NO crime was initially suspected and NO PC existed.

those exigent circumstances do provide probable cause to enter.

Alternatively, say the police discover the door to a business kicked in at 3:00 am. That would give them probable cause to believe that a burglary was being or had been committed. There would be NO exigent circumstances as there would be no reason to believe that any innocent person would be present in the business at 3:00 am (presuming normal business hours and not a 24 hr establishment). Despite the absence of exigent circumstances, the police may lawfully enter to search for the perpetrators of the burglary that they have probable cause to believe is or has occurred. Again, since they had a lawful reason to enter and search (probable cause), any evidence of criminal activity they discover will be legally admissible in court even in the complete absence of any exigent circumstances.

sorry but you have described exigent circumstances to a T. There is a belief there could be a suspect on site and that allows the entry as that is both PC and exigent circumstances.

Beyond that, your situation is totally inapplicable to the discussion since an intruder would have no 4th amend rights in this situation as they are not the rightful owner or possessor of the business and as such, can make no claim for protections. Now, if there was evidence of crimes by the rightful possessor discovered, then we bring it back to the discussion of applicability of the 4th but since that is not the scenario presented, I won't expand any further.

So, as you can see, OR is the correct word, not AND. Police may enter and search for EITHER PC or exigent circumstances, they need NOT both be present simultaneously.

Nope. You have described situations where both exigency and PC are present.

And, no, a state cannot provide lesser protection against government intrusion that that guaranteed by the US Constitution. However, a state constitution CAN provide MORE protection than the US Constitution. And, some states DO provide a greater protection with regards to a residence than the US Constitution provides regarding private property in general. And, the USSC has issued opinions that, in certain circumstances, also provides greater protection with regards to a residence than other forms of property (for example a business or a vehicle). So, for you to imply, with broad brush strokes, that there is no difference is incorrect.

since the US Consititution does allow a protection for a privately rented unit as it would a home, the state could not possibly allow for a greater protection since the US Constitution allows for an absolute right of privacy within the rented unit.

the introduction of situations of a business or a vehicle are irrelevant and simply red herrings in this discussion.