Jeff - I'd like to see the memo you're working from, it may well be that there are subsequent S. Ct. decisions that answer the questions left unanswered in the 1983 case. I checked to insure that the 83 case wasn't overturned, and it hasn't been -- at least not directly. But there clearly can be other law out there.
I agree that the cop has VERY broad latitude in situations involving a stop of a motor vehicle. The S. Ct. has upheld routine stops at sobriety check points at which a driver can be compelled to produce a driver's license, and therefore id.
Also, the S.Ct. ruled within the last two years that the cop has a right to demand that everyone in the car exit, for their own safety. I frankly don't recall if that case said the cop could also demand an id of all occupants; I'd be surprised if that was the case.
But cars and boats are classic exigent circumstances, these suckers can get up and go away in the time it takes to get a warrant. That makes them not necessarily the best guide to what is going to happen in your own home.
I agree that there is a very low probability of civil liability for any officer in the kind of scenario described. The cop was apparently trying to determine if someone was a victim of domestic violence. It aint a crime or a tort to be diigent in your job. Persistence is a virtue in most cases like the one laid out here.
I don't think that one cop could lawfully stay in the premises for two hours while the other left to get a warrant. If they have exigent circumstances which require immediate action to protect life, they can probably get by with skipping a warrant.
If they don't have exigent circumstances, and a warrant is required, the cop that remains in the premises is effectively seizing the residence for the interim.
Again, it may seem pedantic, but the cop has a right to stand on public property and observe, to the best of his abilities, the comings and goings at a residence. He does not have a right to camp out inside while somebody chases a piece of paper.
PS 18 USC 1001, the federal false statement statute, is punishable by five years, not 18, my mistake. There are similar statutes in some but not all states. So the distinction between silence and disception is a big one.
[This message has been edited by abruzzi (edited October 24, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by abruzzi (edited October 24, 1999).]
I agree that the cop has VERY broad latitude in situations involving a stop of a motor vehicle. The S. Ct. has upheld routine stops at sobriety check points at which a driver can be compelled to produce a driver's license, and therefore id.
Also, the S.Ct. ruled within the last two years that the cop has a right to demand that everyone in the car exit, for their own safety. I frankly don't recall if that case said the cop could also demand an id of all occupants; I'd be surprised if that was the case.
But cars and boats are classic exigent circumstances, these suckers can get up and go away in the time it takes to get a warrant. That makes them not necessarily the best guide to what is going to happen in your own home.
I agree that there is a very low probability of civil liability for any officer in the kind of scenario described. The cop was apparently trying to determine if someone was a victim of domestic violence. It aint a crime or a tort to be diigent in your job. Persistence is a virtue in most cases like the one laid out here.
I don't think that one cop could lawfully stay in the premises for two hours while the other left to get a warrant. If they have exigent circumstances which require immediate action to protect life, they can probably get by with skipping a warrant.
If they don't have exigent circumstances, and a warrant is required, the cop that remains in the premises is effectively seizing the residence for the interim.
Again, it may seem pedantic, but the cop has a right to stand on public property and observe, to the best of his abilities, the comings and goings at a residence. He does not have a right to camp out inside while somebody chases a piece of paper.
PS 18 USC 1001, the federal false statement statute, is punishable by five years, not 18, my mistake. There are similar statutes in some but not all states. So the distinction between silence and disception is a big one.
[This message has been edited by abruzzi (edited October 24, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by abruzzi (edited October 24, 1999).]