Appealing the conviction, McGacken argued that, once police knew the noise was consensual sex, they no longer had reason to search his home.AlterNet: Loud Sex Enough for Cops to Search Your Home, Court Rules (Thanks, Sean!)
But the appellate panel at the Superior Court of New Jersey disagreed. On Monday, they dismissed McGacken's appeal, stating that "the potential for harm was too severe for the police to accept an explanation for loud screaming that could have been a cover-up of its true source."
The ruling stated in part:
The police are not required to accept the explanation that a person answering the door gives for a distress call. While loud sex may have been a plausible source of screaming, that explanation was not so reliable that the police acted unreasonably in investigating further....
Moreover, by first questioning defendant and his girlfriend, the troopers discounted the possibility that someone may have made a false report of screaming. Defendant did not deny that screaming had occurred in his residence. His admission made it unnecessary for the police to seek corroboration to establish the reliability of the anonymous 911 call.
Sent from James' iPhone