Exigent home entry---SCOTUS covers rules [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Exigent home entry---SCOTUS covers rules


Sam Spade
02-02-2012, 10:07
http://www.llrmi.com/articles/legal_update/2012_us_ryburn_huff.shtml

To no one's great surprise, the 9th was overturned again. There's a certain sadness when the Supremes have to Spank a Circuit on such basic stuff. Really--even a boot knows that the totality of the circumstances is what matters and that non-criminal acts can be red flags.

Dukeboy01
02-02-2012, 11:53
What was the split?

teleblaster
02-02-2012, 13:26
Well, it was a three judge panel in the 9th Circuit, not en banc, with Judge Rawlinson, a Clinton appointee for both Federal District Court, and then the 9th Circuit, who dissented and got it right. And the author of the 9th Ciruit opinion was The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. No really such a spank on 9th Circuit.

Agent6-3/8
02-02-2012, 14:24
Good read, thanks for posting, Sam.

Sam Spade
02-02-2012, 15:01
What was the split?

Don't know. The decision was published "per curiam". No author given, no vote announced, and no dissent noted. My understanding is that it's *generally* used for something that's so obvious that it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place.

That, and the language in there, is what leads me to call it a spanking. "It should go without saying, however..." The majority's analysis "was entirely unrealistic"..."it is a matter of common sense" (that things should have been viewed differently)...

When your overseers call you unrealistic, lacking common sense, and note that you've disregarded the wise counsel of *lower* courts, I'd say you got spanked.

RussP
02-02-2012, 15:46
...even a boot knows that the totality of the circumstances is what matters and that non-criminal acts can be red flags.:cool:

siblueg
02-03-2012, 09:37
Good read

4949shooter
02-03-2012, 16:22
Excellent read.

Thanks for posting it, Sam.

Morris
02-03-2012, 17:11
For those of us that live under the thumbprint of the 9th, this doesn't surprise us.

ray9898
02-04-2012, 15:30
The 9th is spanked once again.

tcruse
02-04-2012, 16:00
"the officers learned that Vincent had been absent from school for two days and that he was frequently subjected to bullying"

Just from this posting, I guess that I would like to know why the officers were more concerned about a "rumor" rather than the known "bullying offenses" (lack of school taking action against offenders). The first step should be firing the principal of the school.

Also, since the interview already took place between the parent and student outside the house, why would they think that there was an immediate safety problem. From the statement of the facts, no indication was noted of hostile intentent by the home owner. The residents merely ended the conversation when the police did not charge anyone with a crime. I guess that "Child Protective Services" would have had more lea way, but I would have expected them to have a court involved and a hearing before taking any action.

Newcop761
02-04-2012, 16:00
I find it amazing that judges that are correct about 6% of the time are still employed.

Newcop761
02-04-2012, 16:13
"the officers learned that Vincent had been absent from school for two days and that he was frequently subjected to bullying"

Just from this posting, I guess that I would like to know why the officers were more concerned about a "rumor" rather than the known "bullying offenses" (lack of school taking action against offenders). The first step should be firing the principal of the school.

Also, since the interview already took place between the parent and student outside the house, why would they think that there was an immediate safety problem. From the statement of the facts, no indication was noted of hostile intentent by the home owner. The residents merely ended the conversation when the police did not charge anyone with a crime. I guess that "Child Protective Services" would have had more lea way, but I would have expected them to have a court involved and a hearing before taking any action.

Are you serious about not knowing why officers would check up on a teen who was subject to bullying? Really?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Pepper45
02-04-2012, 16:53
"the officers learned that Vincent had been absent from school for two days and that he was frequently subjected to bullying"

Just from this posting, I guess that I would like to know why the officers were more concerned about a "rumor" rather than the known "bullying offenses" (lack of school taking action against offenders). The first step should be firing the principal of the school.

Also, since the interview already took place between the parent and student outside the house, why would they think that there was an immediate safety problem. From the statement of the facts, no indication was noted of hostile intentent by the home owner. The residents merely ended the conversation when the police did not charge anyone with a crime. I guess that "Child Protective Services" would have had more lea way, but I would have expected them to have a court involved and a hearing before taking any action.
Of course, the homeowners actually knowing their rights and the law is too much to ask before they try to play street lawyer. How about, "Officers, I'd like to have my attorney here before I or my son answers any more questions." Or another favorite, "Officer, we're not going to be answering any more questions. Can we go now?" Either of those would have served to end the contact without an emotionally charged scene, people running into a home where there are believed to be guns, etc.

The residents didn't "merely end the conversation", they reacted emotionally and irrationally. That very reaction gave the police the evidence needed to run into the home after them.

steveksux
02-04-2012, 17:05
Why would anyone think it suspicious if a homeowner runs back into their home when police on scene asked if there were guns in the house? :whistling:

That's all the totality of circumstances I'd need, IMO.

The rumors of threats to shoot up the school, the absence from school, the bullying are all just worth a ride out to the house to investigate. That's all icing on the pie.

I think the pie is pretty much good without the icing... am I wrong? Add the rest and it seems blatantly obvious. But its pretty cut and dried just from racing back into the house.

Randy

steveksux
02-04-2012, 17:12
"the officers learned that Vincent had been absent from school for two days and that he was frequently subjected to bullying"

Just from this posting, I guess that I would like to know why the officers were more concerned about a "rumor" rather than the known "bullying offenses" (lack of school taking action against offenders). The first step should be firing the principal of the school.Maybe because of the potential for loss of life if the rumor were true, vs a few bruises for the bullying offenses. You dont' think the bigger issue is making sure Billy isn't loading up his AR15 for a run at the school vs making sure people stop picking on Billy?

Also, since the interview already took place between the parent and student outside the house, why would they think that there was an immediate safety problem. From the statement of the facts, no indication was noted of hostile intentent by the home owner.
"Do you have any guns in the house?"

http://encefalus.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/roadrunner.gif To-may-to
The residents merely ended the conversation when the police did not charge anyone with a crime.To-mah-toe

I guess that "Child Protective Services" would have had more lea way, but I would have expected them to have a court involved and a hearing before taking any action.:shocked: Investigations of purported threats of shooting up a school should wait for CPS and courts?

Randy

tcruse
02-04-2012, 18:11
Well, as an ex-teacher, I am much more concerned about the bullying that is being allowed to happen in the school rather than a rummor that probably started by the students that were doing the bullying. It is the school's responsibility to not allow such activity and they should have had numerous interactions with the childs parents and a plan to stop the problem long before calling the police.

Many times, bullying happens because the school lets it happen because the offending students have some "influence" with the school teachers or administrators. The student may have been already abused by athorities and thus there was a poor greeting to the police officers, as should have been expected. The school students and teachers were in no danger when the police were at the residense. The only possible "violence" would have been if the persons inside the house started firing on the police. If that was the plan the police forcing their way into the house would have set up a less safe condition in that the police could have been ambushed.

In any event, it was handled poorly by the school and the residents. The police, in my opinion, should have not forced their way into the house, but should have looked more closely at filing child endangerment charges against the school principal as first step. Then the child and his parents should have been invited to give a statement against the shool and not be treated as they had commited a crime without evidence. The only possible offense that the parents may have been guilty of is keeping the child home from school without a "legal" reason. I would think that walking back inside of their home should have been their right, but the laws in that location may be different. Being out for two days is not generally cause for alarm and again the first contact with the parents should have been from the school arttendance department, not a police visit.

Does anyone really believe these officers felt they were in danger?

I think that the parents should have been better at working with the police and probably should have requested time to have their attorney. The police should always be held to a much higher standard the the average citizen.

Sam Spade
02-04-2012, 18:19
"the officers learned that Vincent had been absent from school for two days and that he was frequently subjected to bullying"

Just from this posting, I guess that I would like to know why the officers were more concerned about a "rumor" rather than the known "bullying offenses" (lack of school taking action against offenders). The first step should be firing the principal of the school.

Also, since the interview already took place between the parent and student outside the house, why would they think that there was an immediate safety problem. From the statement of the facts, no indication was noted of hostile intentent by the home owner. The residents merely ended the conversation when the police did not charge anyone with a crime. I guess that "Child Protective Services" would have had more lea way, but I would have expected them to have a court involved and a hearing before taking any action.

Really not trying to make this seem like a dog-(pig?) pile... :cool:

You're doing *exactly* what the 9th got spanked for. First, you're picking apart the factors that came up instead of looking at them in the totality of the circumstances. And second, you've morphed "turned and ran" into "ended the conversation". You can't do either of those things when you're judging the split-second decision to enter a home without a warrant.

Like Randy said...if I ask someone about guns and their response is to turn and run, I will develop a very real concern about that. And I agree that cops should be held to a high standard: how many of *your* split-second choices end up on the Supreme Court's desk, or even have the potential to?

Dukeboy01
02-04-2012, 18:32
In KY, a principal "allowing" bullying doesn't really meet the definition of Endangering the Welfare of a Minor, which is a misdemeanor offense.

KRS 530.060 Endangering welfare of minor.
(1) A parent, guardian or other person legally charged with the care or custody of a minor is guilty of endangering the welfare of a minor when he fails or refuses to exercise reasonable diligence in the control of such child to prevent him from becoming a neglected, dependent or delinquent child.
(2) Endangering the welfare of a minor is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective: January 1, 1975
History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 262, effective January 1, 1975.

At any rate, it's not nearly as serious as Terroristic Threatening 2nd:

KRS 508.078 Terroristic threatening in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of terroristic threatening in the second degree when, other than as provided in KRS 508.075, he or she intentionally:
(a) With respect to a school function, threatens to commit any act likely to result in death or serious physical injury to any student group, teacher, volunteer worker, or employee of a public or private elementary or secondary school, vocational school, or institution of postsecondary education, or to any other person reasonably expected to lawfully be on school property or at a school-sanctioned activity, if the threat is related to their employment by a school, or work or attendance at school, or a school function. A threat directed at a person or persons or at a school does not need to identify a specific person or persons or school in order for a violation of this section to occur;
(b) Makes false statements that he or she has placed a weapon of mass destruction at any location other than one specified in KRS 508.075; or
(c) Without lawful authority places a counterfeit weapon of mass destruction at any location other than one specified in KRS 508.075.
(2) A counterfeit weapon of mass destruction is placed with lawful authority if it is placed as part of an official training exercise by a public servant, as defined in KRS 522.010.
(3) A person is not guilty of commission of an offense under this section if he or she, innocently and believing the information to be true, communicates a threat made by another person to school personnel, a peace officer, a law enforcement agency, a public agency involved in emergency response, or a public safety answering point and identifies the person from whom the threat was communicated, if known.
(4) Terroristic threatening in the second degree is a Class D felony.
Effective: June 21, 2001
History: Created 2001 Ky. Acts ch. 113, sec. 2, effective June 21, 2001.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think that the police are going to be more concerned about the picked- on loser than the idea that the picked- on loser might be planning some sort of retaliation that could result in the deaths of dozens of other children. Life is tough. Kids today really need to learn to suck it up.

tcruse
02-04-2012, 19:56
"You're living in a fantasy world if you think that the police are going to be more concerned about the picked- on loser than the idea that the picked- on loser might be planning some sort of retaliation that could result in the deaths of dozens of other children. Life is tough. Kids today really need to learn to suck it up. "


Exactly the wrong response from the authorities. You have classified the child as a "loser" and blamed the victim of the only real crime in the whole story. The "rumor" was unfounded and false. In this case the school had all of the power and did not provide a safe environment for this student.

The whole point is the following:
"A reasonable police officer could read these decisions to mean that the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to enter a residence if the officer has a reasonable basis for concluding that there is an imminent threat of violence"

Based on the write up that has been presented, my opinion is that "a reasonable basis for concluding that there is an IMMINENT THREAT of violence" was not present.
The only real violence was against the student and it was fully known before the officers went to the house. So, is real violence less import.

Sam Spade
02-04-2012, 20:08
Based on the write up that has been presented, my opinion is that "a reasonable basis for concluding that there is an IMMINENT THREAT of violence" was not present.
The only real violence was against the student and it was fully known before the officers went to the house. So, is real violence less import.

I don't know what life experiences you're bringing to the table, so I don't know how to evaluate the worth of your opinion. We do know that the two officers actually confronted with the problem saw a reasonable potential for violence at the house, as did 11 of 13 federal judges (1 District, the dissenting judge of the 3 on the 9th Circuit and 9 Supremes).

And remember that entry to the house was made out of concern for problems at the house, not to correct past problems at the school, or even to prevent future problems at the school.

GackMan
02-04-2012, 20:20
Here's the SCOTUS opinion... I think I'll print this out:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-208.pdf

Cochese
02-04-2012, 21:09
"You're living in a fantasy world if you think that the police are going to be more concerned about the picked- on loser than the idea that the picked- on loser might be planning some sort of retaliation that could result in the deaths of dozens of other children. Life is tough. Kids today really need to learn to suck it up. "


Exactly the wrong response from the authorities. You have classified the child as a "loser" and blamed the victim of the only real crime in the whole story. The "rumor" was unfounded and false. In this case the school had all of the power and did not provide a safe environment for this student.

The whole point is the following:
"A reasonable police officer could read these decisions to mean that the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to enter a residence if the officer has a reasonable basis for concluding that there is an imminent threat of violence"

Based on the write up that has been presented, my opinion is that "a reasonable basis for concluding that there is an IMMINENT THREAT of violence" was not present.
The only real violence was against the student and it was fully known before the officers went to the house. So, is real violence less import.

:rofl:

Really?

:rofl:

tcruse
02-04-2012, 21:44
Well, it is a balance between the officer attempting to protect/serve vs protection under the constitution. I will agree that the parents could have avoided the issue by just showing reasonable responses and maybe doing a better job of working from with in the system before the problem became so serious.

I just do not want to see this ruling used as an excuse for police forceing their way into private homes based on "there may be a gun inside". In this city you would have to look hard to find a home that did not have a gun inside. So, interesting question and one that I has two sides.

Happy that the officers and the home owners were not hurt.

Cochese
02-04-2012, 22:38
That's a little more reasonable. :wavey:

steveksux
02-05-2012, 02:36
Well, it is a balance between the officer attempting to protect/serve vs protection under the constitution. I will agree that the parents could have avoided the issue by just showing reasonable responses and maybe doing a better job of working from with in the system before the problem became so serious.

I just do not want to see this ruling used as an excuse for police forceing their way into private homes based on "there may be a gun inside". In this city you would have to look hard to find a home that did not have a gun inside. So, interesting question and one that I has two sides.

Happy that the officers and the home owners were not hurt.

You're still not getting it... Its not "there may be a gun in the house". That's not a problem. Again, totality of circumstances. That means something.
a) a reported threat of a kid shooting up the school (by itself, just a rumor, no big deal, talk to the kid, see if there's anything to it)
b) by a kid that was reportedly bullied/beat up (now you're getting warm, the kids that get beat up/bullied are usually the ones that lash out in the mass shootings, still not enough to storm the house though)
c) parent seems determined to avoid the cops for some reason, won't answer the door, accidentally answered the phone because they didn't know it was the police calling.
d) when asked about if there are guns in the house, RUN INTO THE HOUSE

You can say yes there are, not there aren't, not enough to go into the house. But when the question is asked and you run into the house, based on everything else that's gone on, what do YOU think she may be doing? She's not running into the house to figure out whether there are guns or not so she can answer the simple question. The obvious response is she's going for the weapon. So you follow her in.



Does anyone really believe these officers felt they were in danger?
You think there's a kid possibly thinking about using a weapon from his house to shoot up the school. You arrive at the home in question, and ask if there's a gun in the home to determine if its at least possible for the kid to be planning this, and the mother runs toward where you suspect a weapon is. Doesn't walk, doesn't say, "wait, I'll bring it out to you", she RUNS INTO THE PLACE YOU SUSPECT A WEAPON IS WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE WEAPON. Seems she's panicked about something, she's either about to try to hide the weapon to protect her kid, or worse going for the weapon.

Does you really believe the officers had no reason to think they were in danger? Someone acting nervous for no reason suddenly bolting when asked about weapons, heading towards the suspected weapon? What's the rush? Something very odd is going on, and it involves weapons.

It doesn't get much plainer than that. You suppose they're supposed to wait on the porch to see if she emerges from the house with a smoking gun in hand before they should do something?

Its hard to fathom that you're really being serious here.

Randy

4949shooter
02-05-2012, 05:20
Well, it is a balance between the officer attempting to protect/serve vs protection under the constitution. I will agree that the parents could have avoided the issue by just showing reasonable responses and maybe doing a better job of working from with in the system before the problem became so serious.

I just do not want to see this ruling used as an excuse for police forceing their way into private homes based on "there may be a gun inside". In this city you would have to look hard to find a home that did not have a gun inside. So, interesting question and one that I has two sides.

Happy that the officers and the home owners were not hurt.

I think what you have been failing to realize, is that in the wake of the Colmbine and Virginia Tech (as well as other) shootings the police have a responsibility to act on these threats. The Supreme Court of the United States has just upheld this responsibility. In other words, the SCOTUS has given the police the tools they need to protect the public.

I see this as a good thing.

SEH95B
02-05-2012, 07:23
Good post

eracer
02-05-2012, 07:33
I wonder when a police officer will enter a home without a warrant when he knows that:

1. The homeowner has guns in the house, and the officer knows it (registration, anyone?)
2. The homeowner was overhead talking about prepping for disaster, and that person reported the conversation to the police.
3. The homeowner, standing on his porch, refuses to allow the officer inside.

Totality of that situation might make the officer fearful that someone was in imminent danger. With this ruling, the officer has nothing stopping him from making a warrantless entry.

Tvov
02-05-2012, 08:48
I did not read anywhere that the school authorities were NOT investigating the bullying. This particular case was specifically about why the police officers entered the house. The entering of the house seemed very justified from what I read.

I bet the school is having all sorts of meetings and PPTs and PTAs and student assemblies and interventions and everything they do today about "bullying" instead of teaching.

merlynusn
02-05-2012, 10:19
Everyone is also forgetting they talked to one of the kid's friends. The friend said that he believed the kid was capable of carrying out the threat.

1) Threat of a kid coming to shoot up the school.
2) Kid absent for 2 days.
3) Kid has been bullied repeatedly.
4) Kid's friend says he believes the kid could carry out the threat.
5) Officers go to kid's house. People inside, won't answer door or answer phone at first.
6) Finally come talk to officers outside acting nervous.
7) When asked about guns, doesn't answer the question and runs into the house.

eracer,
That is not what this was about. You are speaking grapefruits to tomatoes.

The entry into the home was determined based on the totality of the circumstances known at the time of entry. Not made based on the knowledge found out later. If you notice what did the officers do once they were inside the residence. They didn't tear the place apart. They talked to them, determined that there was no danger and they left.

txleapd
02-05-2012, 13:08
I wonder when a police officer will enter a home without a warrant when he knows that:

1. The homeowner has guns in the house, and the officer knows it (registration, anyone?)
2. The homeowner was overhead talking about prepping for disaster, and that person reported the conversation to the police.
3. The homeowner, standing on his porch, refuses to allow the officer inside.

Totality of that situation might make the officer fearful that someone was in imminent danger. With this ruling, the officer has nothing stopping him from making a warrantless entry.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Preparing for a disaster isn't even close to the same thing as threatening harm to others. Not letting a cop into your home isn't the same thing as running back inside when cops are there investigating a terroristic threat which involves guns, and the officer have a reasonable belief that guns are inside the place you just ran into.

You're trying to make this into something it's not, to reinforce your narrow view. That's neither rational nor logical, and not applicable to this ruling.

ray9898
02-05-2012, 14:18
I wonder when a police officer will enter a home without a warrant when he knows that:

1. The homeowner has guns in the house, and the officer knows it (registration, anyone?)
2. The homeowner was overhead talking about prepping for disaster, and that person reported the conversation to the police.
3. The homeowner, standing on his porch, refuses to allow the officer inside.

Totality of that situation might make the officer fearful that someone was in imminent danger. With this ruling, the officer has nothing stopping him from making a warrantless entry.

The circumstances you posted there are in no way similar to those found here of officers investigating a threat of a crime of violence.

Pepper45
02-06-2012, 04:07
I wonder when a police officer will enter a home without a warrant when he knows that:

1. The homeowner has guns in the house, and the officer knows it (registration, anyone?)
2. The homeowner was overhead talking about prepping for disaster, and that person reported the conversation to the police.
3. The homeowner, standing on his porch, refuses to allow the officer inside.

Totality of that situation might make the officer fearful that someone was in imminent danger. With this ruling, the officer has nothing stopping him from making a warrantless entry.

1. The circumstances as described, lacking further information, would not be exigent.

2. The circumstances as described, lacking further information, would not support probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, or evidence thereof is contained within the house. Therefore, a warrant would not be issued.

3. Sometimes people spend way too much time thinking about "what if".

x_out86
02-06-2012, 08:39
I wonder when a police officer will enter a home without a warrant when he knows that:

1. The homeowner has guns in the house, and the officer knows it (registration, anyone?)
2. The homeowner was overhead talking about prepping for disaster, and that person reported the conversation to the police.
3. The homeowner, standing on his porch, refuses to allow the officer inside.

Totality of that situation might make the officer fearful that someone was in imminent danger. With this ruling, the officer has nothing stopping him from making a warrantless entry.
I was going to reply here too, but looks like I have been beaten to the punch about 3 times already. No use in beating a dead horse.

Overall, this was a good read, and is pretty sad that this even had to make it to the SCOTUS in the first place.

eracer
02-06-2012, 10:19
You're comparing apples to oranges. Preparing for a disaster isn't even close to the same thing as threatening harm to others. Not letting a cop into your home isn't the same thing as running back inside when cops are there investigating a terroristic threat which involves guns, and the officer have a reasonable belief that guns are inside the place you just ran into.

You're trying to make this into something it's not, to reinforce your narrow view. That's neither rational nor logical, and not applicable to this ruling.
SCOTUS clearly applied a broad paintbrush to a specific incident.

The salient point of the decision (at least in my narrow view) is that officers are free to determine exigency based on their understanding of the totality of the situation in the moment before entry. I understand that that's been the case for years, but SCOTUS now makes that nearly unimpeachable.

The Supreme Court stated:

"It is a matter of common sense that a combination of events each of which is mundane when viewed in isolation may paint an alarming picture."

I don't see how the ruling can be any more broad-reaching (when viewed as a precedent.)

And I don't see how the scenario I suggested is impossible, given this decision.

DVeng
02-06-2012, 11:33
The salient point of the decision (at least in my narrow view) is that officers are free to determine exigency based on their understanding of the totality of the situation in the moment before entry.

What alternative is there? Officers have to make the decision rapidly and with imperfect information. We can't yell "pause" then huddle up with a few judges and civil rights activists each time we need to decide whether a situation is an emergency and just expect that the danger (if it exists) will wait until we have a consensus. If we get it wrong, the system has safeguards in place (exclusionary rule) to prevent a miscarriage of justice and deter future incorrect assessments.

RussP
02-06-2012, 13:14
I wonder when a police officer will enter a home without a warrant when he knows that:

1. The homeowner has guns in the house, and the officer knows it (registration, anyone?)
2. The homeowner was overhead talking about prepping for disaster, and that person reported the conversation to the police.
3. The homeowner, standing on his porch, refuses to allow the officer inside.

Totality of that situation might make the officer fearful that someone was in imminent danger. With this ruling, the officer has nothing stopping him from making a warrantless entry.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Preparing for a disaster isn't even close to the same thing as threatening harm to others. Not letting a cop into your home isn't the same thing as running back inside when cops are there investigating a terroristic threat which involves guns, and the officer have a reasonable belief that guns are inside the place you just ran into.

You're trying to make this into something it's not, to reinforce your narrow view. That's neither rational nor logical, and not applicable to this ruling.

The circumstances you posted there are in no way similar to those found here of officers investigating a threat of a crime of violence.

1. The circumstances as described, lacking further information, would not be exigent.

2. The circumstances as described, lacking further information, would not support probable cause to believe a crime is being committed, or evidence thereof is contained within the house. Therefore, a warrant would not be issued.

3. Sometimes people spend way too much time thinking about "what if"...As others said, your scenario is dissimilar to the original case.SCOTUS clearly applied a broad paintbrush to a specific incident.

The salient point of the decision (at least in my narrow view) is that officers are free to determine exigency based on their understanding of the totality of the situation in the moment before entry.
I understand that that's been the case for years,...Yes, they did confirm that. but SCOTUS now makes that nearly unimpeachable.The same standards that applied before remain after this decision. The decision does not make it unimpeachable.The Supreme Court stated:

"It is a matter of common sense that a combination of eventsTotality of circumstances...each of which is mundane when viewed in isolationA legal act by itself...may paint an alarming picture."Again, the totality of circumstances...I don't see how the ruling can be any more broad-reaching (when viewed as a precedent.)What really changed?And I don't see how the scenario I suggested is impossible, given this decision.As you present the events, without other additional absolute influences and absolute circumstances, those above do not see the possibilities of a warrantless entry.What alternative is there? Officers have to make the decision rapidly and with imperfect information. We can't yell "pause" then huddle up with a few judges and civil rights activists each time we need to decide whether a situation is an emergency and just expect that the danger (if it exists) will wait until we have a consensus. If we get it wrong, the system has safeguards in place (exclusionary rule) to prevent a miscarriage of justice and deter future incorrect assessments.See...

Mayhem like Me
02-06-2012, 13:34
I wonder when a police officer will enter a home without a warrant when he knows that:

1. The homeowner has guns in the house, and the officer knows it (registration, anyone?)
2. The homeowner was overhead talking about prepping for disaster, and that person reported the conversation to the police.
3. The homeowner, standing on his porch, refuses to allow the officer inside.

Totality of that situation might make the officer fearful that someone was in imminent danger. With this ruling, the officer has nothing stopping him from making a warrantless entry.

WRONGOOOOO...

what crime is the officer investigating in your case????

In THIS case there was a threat to the school , not a prepping for disaster.

In the case you mentioned the police would be answering real calls....and would not even be there...:dunno:

eracer
02-06-2012, 15:55
What alternative is there? Officers have to make the decision rapidly and with imperfect information. We can't yell "pause" then huddle up with a few judges and civil rights activists each time we need to decide whether a situation is an emergency and just expect that the danger (if it exists) will wait until we have a consensus. If we get it wrong, the system has safeguards in place (exclusionary rule) to prevent a miscarriage of justice and deter future incorrect assessments.What was the immediate danger in this case?

That she ran into the house? It's a small step from "I interpreted her running into the house as a sign that there was imminent danger" to "His refusal to let me inside suggested to me that there may be imminent danger from within, considering that he was known to possess an arsenal and have conspiratorial leanings."

It seems to me that in the Ryburn case there was no immediate danger to the officer, and he entered based on his belief that because of the history in the case (none of it evidentiary) that someone might be in danger inside the house.

That's where the decision creates a frightening precedent. In a case where there is clear threat of imminent harm, an officer has - and should have - the right to enter without a warrant. But counting on some nebulous idea of 'common sense' to integrate non-threatening events and hearsay into exigency seems a slippery slope to me. That's the reason we insist on the protection the 4th Amendment gives.

I hear that the officers were investigating a crime. Was the boy ever charged with a crime? If so, where was the warrant needed to gather evidence to support the charges?

From the cited article:

When the officers arrived at the school, the principal informed them that a student, Vincent Huff, was rumored to have written a letter threatening to "shoot up" the school.

Do I think the officers shouldn't have investigated? Of course not. But in the course of that investigation (based on rumors) they entered the residence based on a mundane event (she ran into the house,) and SCOTUS protected their actions, setting a precedent for further erosion of 4th Amendment protections.

My opinion.
Thanks for the debate.

Mayhem like Me
02-06-2012, 16:35
What was the immediate danger in this case?

That she ran into the house? It's a small step from "I interpreted her running into the house as a sign that there was imminent danger" to "His refusal to let me inside suggested to me that there may be imminent danger from within, considering that he was known to possess an arsenal and have conspiratorial leanings."

It seems to me that in the Ryburn case there was no immediate danger to the officer, and he entered based on his belief that because of the history in the case (none of it evidentiary) that someone might be in danger inside the house.

That's where the decision creates a frightening precedent. In a case where there is clear threat of imminent harm, an officer has - and should have - the right to enter without a warrant. But counting on some nebulous idea of 'common sense' to integrate non-threatening events and hearsay into exigency seems a slippery slope to me. That's the reason we insist on the protection the 4th Amendment gives.

I hear that the officers were investigating a crime. Was the boy ever charged with a crime? If so, where was the warrant needed to gather evidence to support the charges?

From the cited article:

When the officers arrived at the school, the principal informed them that a student, Vincent Huff, was rumored to have written a letter threatening to "shoot up" the school.

Do I think the officers shouldn't have investigated? Of course not. But in the course of that investigation (based on rumors) they entered the residence based on a mundane event (she ran into the house,) and SCOTUS protected their actions, setting a precedent for further erosion of 4th Amendment protections.

My opinion.
Thanks for the debate.

You have to look at the totality .. as a cop would.

She runs in after the mention of weapons and the first officer ran in to keep her in sight.. this is a safety issue. YES

Can a parent be covering for or be afraid of their child YES, were their circumstances happening in this very fluid case that require the officers to use heightened caution... YES

and charges on the boy have no bearing on the officers actions, they have to be judged on what the officers knew at the time, not based on hindsight.

steveksux
02-06-2012, 18:24
Running into the house after asking if there are guns there sure seems to suggest danger to me. Obvious inference is she sure seems to want to beat the officers to the guns they were asking about. Sounds like she's thinking "use em or lose em".

People that run get chased. People that run towards the gun you just asked them about get chased with a particularly heightened sense of urgency.

Randy

txleapd
02-06-2012, 19:53
What was the immediate danger in this case?

That she ran into the house? It's a small step from "I interpreted her running into the house as a sign that there was imminent danger" to "His refusal to let me inside suggested to me that there may be imminent danger from within, considering that he was known to possess an arsenal and have conspiratorial leanings."

It seems to me that in the Ryburn case there was no immediate danger to the officer, and he entered based on his belief that because of the history in the case (none of it evidentiary) that someone might be in danger inside the house.

That's where the decision creates a frightening precedent. In a case where there is clear threat of imminent harm, an officer has - and should have - the right to enter without a warrant. But counting on some nebulous idea of 'common sense' to integrate non-threatening events and hearsay into exigency seems a slippery slope to me. That's the reason we insist on the protection the 4th Amendment gives.

I hear that the officers were investigating a crime. Was the boy ever charged with a crime? If so, where was the warrant needed to gather evidence to support the charges?

From the cited article:

When the officers arrived at the school, the principal informed them that a student, Vincent Huff, was rumored to have written a letter threatening to "shoot up" the school.

Do I think the officers shouldn't have investigated? Of course not. But in the course of that investigation (based on rumors) they entered the residence based on a mundane event (she ran into the house,) and SCOTUS protected their actions, setting a precedent for further erosion of 4th Amendment protections.

My opinion.
Thanks for the debate.

Just to let you know..... You've got your panties in a wad over something that has already been standing case law for decades. The supremes just reaffirmed it, to smack down the 9th Circuit. Which they have to do on a regular basis.

Why are you afraid that reaffirming this is going to change something that's older than you or I? Why is the sky falling now?

4949shooter
02-07-2012, 06:35
SCOTUS clearly applied a broad paintbrush to a specific incident.

The salient point of the decision (at least in my narrow view) is that officers are free to determine exigency based on their understanding of the totality of the situation in the moment before entry. I understand that that's been the case for years, but SCOTUS now makes that nearly unimpeachable.

The Supreme Court stated:

"It is a matter of common sense that a combination of events each of which is mundane when viewed in isolation may paint an alarming picture."

I don't see how the ruling can be any more broad-reaching (when viewed as a precedent.)

And I don't see how the scenario I suggested is impossible, given this decision.

What you don't understand is that all case law is derived from certain sets of circumstances. These rulings are subsequently applied in practice to real world settings. However, just because SCOTUS ruled as such for this circumstance does not mean they will do the same in the broad circumstances you have suggested.

As mentioned above, this ruling merely affirms the parameters of exigent circumstances which we have already been operating under. The ruling hasn't changed anything.

seanmac45
02-07-2012, 08:06
Good ruling by the Supremes. Nice to see them standing up for the exigent needs of the cop on the scene who is at risk.

txleapd
02-07-2012, 09:33
As mentioned above, this ruling merely affirms the parameters of exigent circumstances which we have already been operating under. The ruling hasn't changed anything.

You and I know this ruling hasn't changed anything. Just like every other cop on this board. The issue, that I see, is the OP had no clue the warrantless entry exemption for exigent circumstances even existed. He's now concerned about completely different scenarios in which we will abuse it, even though it hasn't been an issue in the last 40 years.

Basically, his ignorance is fueling his paranoia.

seanmac45
02-07-2012, 09:52
It doesn't change anything, that is true. But it is still an excellent reaffirmation of the necessity of LEO's to act on the moment in a rapidly developing situation based upon the totality of the circumstances.

Otherwise, we would need legal umpires out there on the streets.......