Question

Imagine Joe calls the police from his smart phone to report a crime he could see from his house. While he’s on the phone with the dispatcher, he seems suspicious, leaving out certain details and refusing to give any information about himself or how to contact him. However, the 911 dispatcher can track his phone’s location automatically, and the police arrived at his door without a warrant. They just plan to talk to him, and try to persuade him to give more information on his own.
Joe has already locked his front door and fled the scene, specifically to avoid speaking with the officers. However, the artificial intelligence that controls Joe’s smart house knows Joe recently called 911, and it is programmed to assist emergency responders in case the residents of the house need to be rescued. So, when the police arrive at his door to take his statement, the A.I. opens the door to let them inside. Once the door opens, the police see drugs, drug paraphernalia, and guns.

Given that the police did not have a search warrant, and Joe did not open the door, will those items be admissible as evidence? Explain your reasoning.

How should smart homes be programmed to respond to these types of situations? Should safety or privacy be more important?

As advanced technology becomes more and more common, what procedures might police need to develop for interacting with smart homes?

Answer 1

If the police had no warrant saying they could go in or search Joe's house then the police could be in a certain amount of trouble as well seeing as Joe did not willingly let them in and they never had a warrant but Joe could be in a lot more trouble for being in the possession of drugs.

And smart homes should be more advanced to these kinds of things because they could have been fake cops, plus they had no warrant which leaves everyone in this situation at fault especially Joe for being in the possession of drugs and the possible false 911 call influenced on drugs either making him see things or think things, maybe even both.