I just don't buy that all it takes is a complaint to allow uninvited (by the property OWNER... YOU can't invite somebody onto MY property) access onto private property to to investigate an alleged crime.
That's all it takes, if you buy it or not, that's the law. When the complaint was called in, the officer was given the right to investigate. If your theory was true one could commit all kinds of crimes on his property and be protected by his no trespassing sign.
Say someone put up a no trespassing sign and then proceeded to rape and brutally murder a prostitute they just picked up. Neighbors heard the screams and called the police. The police arrived, stopped at the property line because of the no trespassing sign and failed to discover the dismembered body in the bushes.
Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. If you want them to have to have a warrant to enter, do it indoors.
The officer KNEW that there were legal circumstances under which a firearm could be discharged on that particular piece of property.
The officer also knew there were illegal circumstances under which a firearm could have been used on that property too. Someone could have been murdered, some drunk could have been shooting up the place. Are you suggesting that it should be illegal to investigate an alleged crime involving gunfire if it's legal to shoot where the complaint was made?
So even if he were reasonable in assuming that the caller had in fact heard shots, he had the obligation to assume the discharges taking place were in fact legal because he had NO REASONABLE evidence to say they were not.
What reasonable evidence did he have that every was in fact on the up and up? You could have been lying there bleeding out because a disgruntled employee shot you, or you had an ND and shot yourself. Maybe they issue crystal balls to the officers where you work, but I dropped and cracked mine and I never knew for sure what was involved with a call until I got there and investigated.
Therefor, there was NO reason for any "investigation", or any entry onto the property.
What part of; "There was a complaint" is so hard to understand. I always used to apologize and explain that when someone called in a complaint that we were obligated to respond even if we were almost positive it was unfounded.
f he had reversed the sequence and came to the office first, I would have almost certainly allowed him access to the range. Almost. But the point is, it should be MY choice to make.
Not your choice to make now, nor will it be until all kinds of state and federal court precedents are overturned. If you feel so strongly about this, why don't you get status to take the case to court. Commit a crime behind the protection of your no trespassing sign, and use the argument that the police violated your Fourth Amendment rights when they entered the property without a warrant to investigate. I don't believe you would prevail, but you're welcome to try.
Jeff
