Court OKs police home entry in emergencies
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
invssgt-
Perhaps if you'd actually Read the thread, rather than knee-jerking a defensive position (because the court case is nominally about Police actions?) you'd realize that:
a) Nobody has claimed the cops had no right to enter
b) Nobody has chastised the cops for their decision
c) The LEO's in this case were not acting to give emergency aid
d) There was no violent crime in process, nor was anyone charged with such. (The sole charges emanating from this No-Knock entry amounted to Disturbing the Peace and the like.)
e) Monday morning quarterbacking is what the Courts and the Citizens are there for. Does it always have to end in charges of "cop bashing", "why are you attacking me?" and "walk a mile in my shoes"? Even when no-one is accusing the cops of acting in bad faith?
If there is someone over-reacting or being extremist here, it'd be you. On this side of the fence we've granted the LEO's the right to enter. And we've recognized the State of Utah's powers to grant its citizens a broader Right to Privacy than the Federal Constitution; just as we grant each State the right to determine its own citizens' rights concerning firearms ownership. You, on the other hand, essentially argue, "It was a a judgment call by LEO's. It must have been lawful" and "The States have no powers to expand their citizens rights under their individual Constitutions. Those powers are limited to the Federal Government."
Now, I respect your right to hold that position. But this inevitable argument that we're cop-bashing and every expansion of Federal Powers is to protect Citizens from being murdered in their beds is really getting threadbare.
Rich
Perhaps if you'd actually Read the thread, rather than knee-jerking a defensive position (because the court case is nominally about Police actions?) you'd realize that:
a) Nobody has claimed the cops had no right to enter
b) Nobody has chastised the cops for their decision
c) The LEO's in this case were not acting to give emergency aid
d) There was no violent crime in process, nor was anyone charged with such. (The sole charges emanating from this No-Knock entry amounted to Disturbing the Peace and the like.)
e) Monday morning quarterbacking is what the Courts and the Citizens are there for. Does it always have to end in charges of "cop bashing", "why are you attacking me?" and "walk a mile in my shoes"? Even when no-one is accusing the cops of acting in bad faith?
If there is someone over-reacting or being extremist here, it'd be you. On this side of the fence we've granted the LEO's the right to enter. And we've recognized the State of Utah's powers to grant its citizens a broader Right to Privacy than the Federal Constitution; just as we grant each State the right to determine its own citizens' rights concerning firearms ownership. You, on the other hand, essentially argue, "It was a a judgment call by LEO's. It must have been lawful" and "The States have no powers to expand their citizens rights under their individual Constitutions. Those powers are limited to the Federal Government."
Now, I respect your right to hold that position. But this inevitable argument that we're cop-bashing and every expansion of Federal Powers is to protect Citizens from being murdered in their beds is really getting threadbare.
Rich
I don't recall a handgun entering into the "same situation" your refering to. But ok, say it did. Since I don't believe that every cop is a trigger happy, kill junkie, I would say that it depends on where my gun is. Is it in my holster? Probably have me assume the position and cuff me for their safety. As I've seen on "Cops" several times. Which personally doesn't offend me since it's happened to me before and nothing bad came of it, since I knew I had done nothing wrong. Is it pointed at the minor's head? I'd probably be blown away. Which is what police review boards are for. If your implying that the police would shoot me because I draw on apparent home invaders, it doesn't fly. If I could hear them approaching, knowing the only people authorized to be in my home are right in front of me, then I would have heard their verbal calls of, "Police Department." AGAIN, the report said they verbally identified themselves. And since I don't inherently fear the police, or the police uniform, which the badge kind of gives away. On the off chance that I didn't detect their presence until they were in the doorway of the room, I wouldn't immediately draw and shoot. I would IDENTIFY my target. One of the four rules of safety I might add. Not every cop is the shoot first ask questions later variety. And those that are usually are hard pressed to justify their actions. Or maybe I just have too much an optimistic view towards our law enforcement officers these days. Call me crazy, I thought they were supposed to be the good guys.
Love&Hate12
New member
I could think of several dreadful situations where this rookie hotshot "metermaid" cop in my neighborhood(gave me a ticket for going 1mph over the speed limit) would let hearing some yelling go to his head and bust down my door. I hope no LEO's take that as an insult because I highly respect LEO's who do their jobs correctly, this little tulip in my neighborhood does not however.... he's just looking for something that isn't there at all times.
Ugh. Sure, you could argue that it has it's positives, but it also has plenty of negatives that have been fully discussed already. Laws do come and go however.
Ugh. Sure, you could argue that it has it's positives, but it also has plenty of negatives that have been fully discussed already. Laws do come and go however.
Im aggree'in with rich.you nail'd it.
alot of discretion involving what an emergency is.this doesnt appear to have been one.it appears that the situation was elevated more than it actually was. bad decision by the court.
I wonder how this decision will affect other search/seizure laws aleady on the books.
alot of discretion involving what an emergency is.this doesnt appear to have been one.it appears that the situation was elevated more than it actually was. bad decision by the court.
I wonder how this decision will affect other search/seizure laws aleady on the books.
Here is the synapsis of what happened, taken directly from the syllabus. I've added some highlighting to address the major issues here.
The only differences between the Utah Constitution and the US Constitution is what I've bracketed below. The federal documents differences are in the brackets.
Article I, Section 14.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects[,] against unreasonable searches and seizures[,] shall not be violated;[,] and no warrant shall issue[,] but upon probable cause[,] supported by oath or affirmation, [and] particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.
Essentially the same, yes? But, as Stevens has pointed out, the State of Utah has interpreted their protections as being greater than the Feds have. That is, Utah allows for more protection than the Federal interpretation. And that should have been the controlling law.
The Utah Supreme Court held that the police did not have an objectively reasonable belief that an incapacitating injury had occurred. Evidence was that the police did not give aid to the injured party, instead acted solely as police breaking up a fight. Therefore the “emergency aid doctrine” could not come into play. Since they were unlawfully within the house, anything they did, while inside the house, was fruit of the tainted tree.
We would say that the entry did not raise to exigent circumstances.
What has happened, is that the trial court, the court of appeals and the Utah Supreme Court ruled on Utah law and the SCOTUS has dismissed Utah law and ruled on Federal Law. As Justice Stevens has said, the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on Utah Constitutional Law.
But the Federal Supreme Court did just that. Thereby making Utah Constitutional protections, and case law, null and void. In doing so, the Court has reversed a long standing and heretofore settled point of law that plainly goes to whichever (state or fed) protections are the greater.
This may or may not ever be used again. But it is now precedent. That precedent says that in virtually any case where the protections of a state constitution may be greater than the protections afforded by the US Constitution, it is the US Constitution that is controlling. It makes the 14th amendment an absolute barrier and turns federalism on its head.
And yes, this ruling does another thing. The thing you all have been arguing about. Exigent circumstances, by which the police, rescue or firefighters may now use to enter a dwelling or other private domain (the "emergency aid doctrine."), has just been set lower than ever before. Whatever reasonable suspicion may have meant before Monday, the bar has just been lowered. Are we now to understand that any articulable suspicion, reasonable or not, is now the standard? If so, the 4th amendment protects almost nothing.
The only differences between the Utah Constitution and the US Constitution is what I've bracketed below. The federal documents differences are in the brackets.
Article I, Section 14.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects[,] against unreasonable searches and seizures[,] shall not be violated;[,] and no warrant
Essentially the same, yes? But, as Stevens has pointed out, the State of Utah has interpreted their protections as being greater than the Feds have. That is, Utah allows for more protection than the Federal interpretation. And that should have been the controlling law.
The Utah Supreme Court held that the police did not have an objectively reasonable belief that an incapacitating injury had occurred. Evidence was that the police did not give aid to the injured party, instead acted solely as police breaking up a fight. Therefore the “emergency aid doctrine” could not come into play. Since they were unlawfully within the house, anything they did, while inside the house, was fruit of the tainted tree.
We would say that the entry did not raise to exigent circumstances.
What has happened, is that the trial court, the court of appeals and the Utah Supreme Court ruled on Utah law and the SCOTUS has dismissed Utah law and ruled on Federal Law. As Justice Stevens has said, the Supreme Court has no authority to rule on Utah Constitutional Law.
But the Federal Supreme Court did just that. Thereby making Utah Constitutional protections, and case law, null and void. In doing so, the Court has reversed a long standing and heretofore settled point of law that plainly goes to whichever (state or fed) protections are the greater.
This may or may not ever be used again. But it is now precedent. That precedent says that in virtually any case where the protections of a state constitution may be greater than the protections afforded by the US Constitution, it is the US Constitution that is controlling. It makes the 14th amendment an absolute barrier and turns federalism on its head.
And yes, this ruling does another thing. The thing you all have been arguing about. Exigent circumstances, by which the police, rescue or firefighters may now use to enter a dwelling or other private domain (the "emergency aid doctrine."), has just been set lower than ever before. Whatever reasonable suspicion may have meant before Monday, the bar has just been lowered. Are we now to understand that any articulable suspicion, reasonable or not, is now the standard? If so, the 4th amendment protects almost nothing.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Brother Anti-
As clear, cogent and frightening as that is, try as you might, too many see this simply as the Court protecting the Protectors. Any challenge to the decision is viewed as anti-LEO. They simply don't realize that the decision is Pro-Central Government. They see neither the Fourth, the Tenth nor the Fourteenth Amendment ramifications of this....only "common sense" efforts to keep us safe from murder in our beds.
Dude, you are SO good!
Thank you for the great read.
Rich
Now I'm lost. The way I read the ruling, and the highlighted portions in Anti's post. I understood it to mean that the ruling said the cops had no right to enter into the residence because a simple punch to the face wasn't life threatening enough to enact emergency situation standards. How is this an example of the court protecting the protectors? I also don't see how someone can measure the incapacitating effect of a punch when different people react differently to pain and injury. But that point aside. Who exactly is the court siding with here? The police who apparently acted only in a law enforcement role as breaking up a fight? Or the complainants who filed suit for wrongfull entry based on the fourth? Please clarify this for me as I've stated before, legal jargin sometimes doesn't appear clear to me.
Is is the state courts who ruled in favor of the complainants, and the federal courts reversing that ruling? Or was the federal court simply admonishing the lawyers involved for letting what appeared to be a trivial matter from getting so far out of control, and not reversing any ruling? I've read the legal posts several times but am having a bit of difficulty applying what they say, to the arguments of some posters here.
Glock 31, at the original trial, the defense attorney filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained because the police made a warrantless entry. Motion was granted. Without evidence, the bulk of the charges were dismissed.
The Brigham City prosecuter appealed that decision.
At the appeals, the court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
The prosecuter appealed to the Utah Supremes. They upheld the appeals court decision, again, affirming the trial court.
At this point, the only appeal left would be to the Supreme Court of the U.S... And so the city appealed!
This is where it gets weird. The Utah Supreme Court based its decision upon Utah Law, which gives greater protection in its Article I sect 14 than does the US BOR 4th amendment... Actually, they are the same, just that Utah has established case law that holds for greater protections.
What the SCOTUS should have done was to deny Cert, thereby letting state law be state law. Instead, the SCOTUS granted cert and heard the case.
Now the next twist. In its decision, the SCOTUS ignored Utah precedent, thereby ignoring Utah Law and held that the US BOR 4th amendment was not violated and therefore overturned the highest State Court based upon supremacy of Federal Law. In doing this, the SCOTUS also ignored the "objectively reasonable belief" standard and redefined what that standard means. As it now stands, only a reasonable belief is necessary to enter a private place without a warrant. That is a much lower standard than an objectively reasonable belief.
To sum then: The SCOTUS overturned the state courts and sided with law enforcement.
The Brigham City prosecuter appealed that decision.
At the appeals, the court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
The prosecuter appealed to the Utah Supremes. They upheld the appeals court decision, again, affirming the trial court.
At this point, the only appeal left would be to the Supreme Court of the U.S... And so the city appealed!
This is where it gets weird. The Utah Supreme Court based its decision upon Utah Law, which gives greater protection in its Article I sect 14 than does the US BOR 4th amendment... Actually, they are the same, just that Utah has established case law that holds for greater protections.
What the SCOTUS should have done was to deny Cert, thereby letting state law be state law. Instead, the SCOTUS granted cert and heard the case.
Now the next twist. In its decision, the SCOTUS ignored Utah precedent, thereby ignoring Utah Law and held that the US BOR 4th amendment was not violated and therefore overturned the highest State Court based upon supremacy of Federal Law. In doing this, the SCOTUS also ignored the "objectively reasonable belief" standard and redefined what that standard means. As it now stands, only a reasonable belief is necessary to enter a private place without a warrant. That is a much lower standard than an objectively reasonable belief.
To sum then: The SCOTUS overturned the state courts and sided with law enforcement.
Antipitas,
I'm wondering about this ruling in light of the 10th Amendment. Doesn't the
10th amendment make it clear that where the US constitution is not silent on an issue, it takes precedence over state law. I'm not sure, but this is what I learned somewhere a long time ago.
I'm wondering about this ruling in light of the 10th Amendment. Doesn't the
10th amendment make it clear that where the US constitution is not silent on an issue, it takes precedence over state law. I'm not sure, but this is what I learned somewhere a long time ago.
The tenth amendment couldn't be more clear, IMO. It deals strictly with power. If a power is not enumerated within the US Constitution, said power belongs to the States or the people.
In other words, what is not given to the federal governemnt, is prohibited to that government. It then descends to the States. If it is not given (enumerated) to the States via their own constitutions, then it belongs to the people.
In other words, what is not given to the federal governemnt, is prohibited to that government. It then descends to the States. If it is not given (enumerated) to the States via their own constitutions, then it belongs to the people.
Thankyou Anti, for straightening that out for me.
IMHO, I still believe that allowing officers to enter homes within the basis of stopping crime or rendering aid, regardless of where the bar was set with this case, has the potential to do more good than bad in the long run. Cops have enough second guessing to do in their jobs without having to remember to knock in any given situation, especially if the adrenaline is pumping.
How many different ways can the 4th amendment become an issue in situations like this? If a cop is chasing a suspect, and the pursuit started outside the residence. Why is it officers don't need a warrant to pursue the suspect further if he enters his residence? Is it all based on where the alleged crime originally occured?
IMHO, I still believe that allowing officers to enter homes within the basis of stopping crime or rendering aid, regardless of where the bar was set with this case, has the potential to do more good than bad in the long run. Cops have enough second guessing to do in their jobs without having to remember to knock in any given situation, especially if the adrenaline is pumping.
How many different ways can the 4th amendment become an issue in situations like this? If a cop is chasing a suspect, and the pursuit started outside the residence. Why is it officers don't need a warrant to pursue the suspect further if he enters his residence? Is it all based on where the alleged crime originally occured?
Exigent Circumstances has always been the norm. I was not aware that this changed anything. If I witness something like this occurring, I am going inside. I may announce my presence, if the situtation warrants it. If it is tactically unsound, then no, I wont.
As far as I am concerned, the assault of a minor is just about as exigent as it gets. The injuries incurred are irrelevant. It very well may be that the officers immediate intrusion into the domicile is the very reason the injuries were so slight. The prevention of harm to life and limb is my primary duty, above all else.
So, in conclusion.. I always knock and announce , when the situation allows and warrants it. I will not knock and announce my presence in the middle of an assault, no matter how seemingly minor. Just remember, the most brutal assault often begins with one punch.
As far as I am concerned, the assault of a minor is just about as exigent as it gets. The injuries incurred are irrelevant. It very well may be that the officers immediate intrusion into the domicile is the very reason the injuries were so slight. The prevention of harm to life and limb is my primary duty, above all else.
So, in conclusion.. I always knock and announce , when the situation allows and warrants it. I will not knock and announce my presence in the middle of an assault, no matter how seemingly minor. Just remember, the most brutal assault often begins with one punch.
Last edited: