The other side of the coin

[OuTcAsT]

For everyone who wanted the Police to kick in the door and save the day PM me your address and I will have the Police come to your home at 0 dark thirty, kick in your door and get you medical assistance.

Or hell, just post it here on tha interwebz , Since there is no way a dispatcher could possibly be "tricked", or "lied to", you should have nothing to worry about

 

[ftd]

Outcast and Antipitas,

Regarding "calculated risk" -

Sorry, I was referring to a later news posting than the one presented in this thread that said that the wife had a seizure which caused her black-out and the birth - no mention that she had any history of seizures. Could this have been anticipated? You decide. I don't think we have enough information to place al blame on the wife or husband.

Regarding other investigation options -

How about contacting the landlord (who has the legal authority to enter the apartment) to come and inspect the apartment. Not illegal and no lawsuit, just a little extra effort and time.

If LEs only look for evidence of a crime, why weren't emt's called or also called to the site?

I am not accusing the LEs or anyone else of any wrong doing, just suggesting that an outcome could have been different by using some other approaches.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Sorry, I was referring to a later news posting than the one presented in this thread that said that the wife had a seizure which caused her black-out and the birth - no mention that she had any history of seizures. Could this have been anticipated? You decide.

The article in the OP is very clear about the fact that the wife was experiencing an amount of pain the evening prior, that was alarming enough for her to consult a doctor, and make an appointment. While it is impossible to say for sure, the pain, (in her lower back) might indicate a premature onset of labor. The premature labor may have been the proximate cause of the seizure, rather than the opposite. Not stating fact, just speculation based on the story.

I don't think we have enough information to place al blame on the wife or husband.

On this point, I disagree. They both knew that there was something not quite right or, there would have not been enough concern to warrant a Doctors appointment.

I don't feel it unreasonable to think that they should have sought immediate medical attention, or at the least, the husband should have kept her under observation until the appointment, either directly, or through friends or family.

Regarding other investigation options -

How about contacting the landlord (who has the legal authority to enter the apartment) to come and inspect the apartment. Not illegal and no lawsuit,

First off, you are incorrect on a couple of the finer points about landlord rights, The landlord can inspect the property, but this usually requires advance notice, and, permission. Usually a landlord can only enter the apartment with that permission, or on an emergency (Fire, Flood) basis. Otherwise, it is illegal.

Now, Had the Husband called the landlord, and requested that he enter, that could likely have been done. The police, however, do not have the authority to make such a request. it would be the same as kicking the door.

If LEs only look for evidence of a crime, why weren't emt's called or also called to the site?

While I will not speak for LE, in general, a welfare check likely would include looking in windows, knocking on and checking doors, listening for moans, yells, screams, or any signs of trouble.
As an EMT, I can tell you that there is no evidence that I could find, that a cop would not also recognize as a sign of trouble. (Incidentally, lots of, if not most, LEO's are cross trained as medical first responders, EMTs or Paramedics.

Sorry to tell you, but this was not a failure of LE, to do their job. It is a failure of people taking personal responsibility for their own well being.

 

[Michael Anthony]

Outcast you are absolutely right on all points except for "lots of" or "most" LEOs also being EMTs. This is pretty rare in most areas.

I would say "some" are, but not "most" or even "lots."

Your description of what is done on a welfare check is pretty much dead-on, and echoes what Wagonman posted they usually entail. Without something to arouse suspicion, the job is done. And to answer the repeated point that will be raised: No, the dude on the phone does not arouse suspicion that something is going on. In fact in the same situation, my first guess would be this is her estranged husband trying to harass or control. That's just my personal opinion though.

Your last sentence is the end-all. Some people cannot and will not ever understand that because of the civil rights they hold so dear, some problems become solely theirs.

 

[OuTcAsT]

you are absolutely right on all points except for "lots of" or "most" LEOs also being EMTs. This is pretty rare in most areas

Mr. Anthony,

Thanks for clearing that up, I will tell you that it is becoming increasingly popular in my particular area, due to the rapid growth of population in my, and surrounding, counties.

Cross-training LEOs as Firefighters, and EMTs maximizes the manpower available for large scale situations, and, since LE is typically the first on the scene of car crashes, fights, and DV incidents, a trusted logistical assessment can be made before other assets start to roll.

It is also a win-win in the case of a fire fight, as an officer down can begin to receive medical care before EMTs could even enter the scene.

You may start to see this trend in your area, as budgets for personnel get smaller but, the population does not.

Some people cannot and will not ever understand that because of the civil rights they hold so dear, some problems become solely theirs.

Agreed, you simply cannot have it both ways. Either the law protects your rights to privacy, and against illegal search, or, you might just as well leave your front door open.

I don't think it's any surprise that I prefer my rights to stay intact, and will see to the well-being of my own family as required.

Stay Safe !

 

[ftd]

Outcast,

First off, you are incorrect on a couple of the finer points about landlord rights, The landlord can inspect the property, but this usually requires advance notice, and, permission. Usually a landlord can only enter the apartment with that permission, or on an emergency (Fire, Flood) basis. Otherwise, it is illegal.

From: http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/HomelessnesstoHomeownership/PDFs/Landlord_Tenant_Handbook.pdf

The Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act

[introduction]
The VRLTA, Sections 55-248.2 through 55-248.40 of the Code of Virginia, was initially enacted into law in 1974. The VRLTA establishes the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants in Virginia. The VRLTA supersedes all local, county, and municipal landlord and tenant ordinances. It also prohibits certain lease clauses.

§ 55-248.10:1. Landlord and tenant remedies for abuse of access.
If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the landlord may recover actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees. If the landlord makes an unlawful entry or a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner or makes repeated demands for entry otherwise lawful but which have the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the conduct, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the tenant may recover actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees.

§ 55-248.18. Access; consent.
A. The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter into the dwelling unit in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workmen or contractors. The landlord may enter the dwelling unit without consent of the tenant in case of emergency. The landlord shall not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant.

This clearly gives the landlord emergency access to the apartment. I could find no definition of the word "emergency", nor limitations to the term within the VRLTA. Maybe there have been court cases that have limited the term "emergency" in this act to "fire, flood". I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

The article in the OP is very clear about the fact that the wife was experiencing an amount of pain the evening prior, that was alarming enough for her to consult a doctor, and make an appointment. While it is impossible to say for sure, the pain, (in her lower back) might indicate a premature onset of labor. The premature labor may have been the proximate cause of the seizure, rather than the opposite. Not stating fact, just speculation based on the story.

Sorry, but I can't do much about "might" or "may". Speculation is sometimes helpful. I speculate that the LEs should have done more investigation.

I don't feel it unreasonable to think that they should have sought immediate medical attention, or at the least, the husband should have kept her under observation until the appointment, either directly, or through friends or family.

The wife called her doctor the day before, when she had the pain. He could have told her to come in immediately or go to the emergency room. If he did, she definitely took a calculated risk by not following that advice. If the doctor told her to come in the next morning then I wouldn't fault her for waiting. We don't know. The husband said that she was fine before he left for work.

 

[OuTcAsT]

A quick lesson on Landlord/Tenant law, why would you think this law has this remedy;

If the tenant refuses to allow lawful access, the landlord may obtain injunctive relief to compel access,

Injunctive relief requires the landlord appear before a judge, in court, to prove the right to reasonable access, or that it has been denied. Wonder why he can't just use the key? Hint: It's illegal. This may also give you some insight as to the spirit of the law as it pertains to "emergency" access without consent. It is typically frowned upon except in the event it is necessary to prevent, or contain, a catastrophic incident.
IE Fire/Flood. These laws tend to favor the privacy of the tenant over the right of inspection by a landlord. In other words, If you don't want your landlord to have access to your apartment, he must sue to get it. (or set it on fire)

I speculate that the LEs should have done more investigation.

Ok, reasonable speculation, so let me ask, given that;

"And nobody responded, so I call 911 to come to my house and check my wife with my one-and-a-half-year (old) boy. So, when they came they knocked on the door and told me ... that nobody responded in the house, no TV, no noise, no nothing in the house," he said. [

what "more investigation" could be done within the law?

Understand that, as far as the police are concerned, all they have is, what amounts to an anonymous call that something may (speculation on the husband's part)
be wrong, in what appears to be a possibly empty (nobody home) apartment.

What would you have the police, firefighters, ems, do ?

 

[bigger hammer]

FTD quotes from the VRLTA and then writes this;

This clearly gives the landlord emergency access to the apartment.

Yes it does but only under certain conditions, none of which existed.

I could find no definition of the word "emergency", nor limitations to the term within the VRLTA. Maybe there have been court cases that have limited the term "emergency" in this act to "fire, flood". I couldn't find anything, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I can't speak for the law there, only here in CA. In this context "emergency" means such things as "a smell of natural gas emanating from the apartment." Ditto for "smoke" and such things as put other tenants in danger. It would also apply to "medical emergencies" of those inside the apartment, but it's already been pointed out that we have no indication of any such "emergency." It's only "after" the fact that we know that there was one.

Sorry, but I can't do much about "might" or "may". Speculation is sometimes helpful. I speculate that the LEs should have done more investigation.

I speculate that they did all they could have done. Perhaps you have a suggestion about what further steps they should have taken?

The wife called her doctor the day before, when she had the pain. He could have told her to come in immediately or go to the emergency room. If he did, she definitely took a calculated risk by not following that advice. If the doctor told her to come in the next morning then I wouldn't fault her for waiting. We don't know. The husband said that she was fine before he left for work.

Again showing us that there was no "emergency" known to anyone at the time.

 

[ftd]

Injunctive relief -

The same applies to the tenant, as previously quoted from section 55-248.10:1. So what? My point is that this act does not specify criminal penalties. Please note the terms "unreasonable" and "repeated".

If the landlord makes an unlawful entry or a lawful entry in an unreasonable manner or makes repeated demands for entry otherwise lawful but which have the effect of unreasonably harassing the tenant, the tenant may obtain injunctive relief to prevent the recurrence of the conduct, or terminate the rental agreement. In either case, the tenant may recover actual damages and reasonable attorney's fees.

Section 55-248.18, previously quoted, addresses "Access; Consent", and says that the landlord can enter without gaining consent in an emergency.

Injunctive relief requires the landlord appear before a judge, in court, to prove the right to reasonable access, or that it has been denied. Wonder why he can't just use the key? Hint: It's illegal. This may also give you some insight as to the spirit of the law as it pertains to "emergency" access without consent. It is typically frowned upon except in the event it is necessary to prevent, or contain, a catastrophic incident.
IE Fire/Flood. These laws tend to favor the privacy of the tenant over the right of inspection by a landlord. In other words, If you don't want your landlord to have access to your apartment, he must sue to get it. (or set it on fire)

Injunctive relief is not about legality, it is about rights - there is no criminal penalties involved with this issue as defined by this act; also, no definition of "lawful" and unlawful" acts is provided. If a truly "unlawful" act occured, it must be rosecutable through other laws in addition to the injunctive relief specified in this act.

I have found no additional references to your contentions concerning "typically frowned upon" or "catastrophic incident. IE Fire/Flood". Could these be from policy manuals instead of law or court reviews?

what "more investigation" could be done within the law?

I've already said that I think they should have done more to try to gain access (NOT "break down the door"), by contacting the landlord.

What would you have the police, firefighters, ems, do ?

EMs and firefighter in an EM roll - the same as I have said for police. Firefighters in a fire roll - most big city fire Department have infra-red devices to detect heat (as in fire) - make sure there is no fire and call the LEs to investigate a false alarm if no fire is detected. In an apartment situation, I would also expect them to seek out the landlord for access/inspection as the danger to mutiple dwellings could be catastrophic.

 

[publius42]

The problem stated in the article was that they didn't have the tools to break down a door. That's silly. Any reasonably resourceful person can break most doors.

That could be wrong information in the article, and the discussion here is about whether or not to break a door because someone on the phone asked you to do so. I can't blame a cop for not doing that, but how hard would it be to identify the person on the phone in less than four hours? Have him drive to the nearest police station and identify himself and place the call from there with a bunch of cops present.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Have him drive to the nearest police station and identify himself and place the call from there with a bunch of cops present.

Exactly. I mentioned this in an earlier post. It's fascinating how the OP and those who seem to be on the 'other side of the coin'* are more concerned with how the officers were justified than how they displayed so little imagination in finding a way to exercise the prerogative of the husband to authorize a forced-entry welfare check on his wife. The husband's fear under the circumstances was reasonable and correct as it turned out.

*An interesting title with built-in assumptions about which side most folks fall on.

 

[bigger hammer]

what "more investigation" could be done within the law?

I've already said that I think they should have done more to try to gain access (NOT "break down the door"), by contacting the landlord.

Since there was no "emergency" the landlord could not have entered.

What would you have the police, firefighters, ems, do ?

EMs and firefighter in an EM roll - the same as I have said for police. Firefighters in a fire roll - most big city fire Department have infra-red devices to detect heat (as in fire) - make sure there is no fire and call the LEs to investigate a false alarm if no fire is detected.

They would not have detected a fire and there was no "false alarm" of one.

In an apartment situation, I would also expect them to seek out the landlord for access/inspection as the danger to mutiple dwellings could be catastrophic.

Since they would not have detected a fire, there would be no need for (or a right to) "access/inspection."

 

[bigger hammer]

how hard would it be to identify the person on the phone in less than four hours? Have him drive to the nearest police station and identify himself and place the call from there with a bunch of cops present.

I suggested something similar waaaaay back in post #28.

 

[maestro pistolero]

From post #26

For example, what if a police officer in the location of the husband were to verify his ID and call it in? How long could that take? If I, as a civilian, in 5 seconds, can think of a way to verify the gentlemen's identity, why is that so insurmountable for LE professionals?

So some of us, at least, agree that more could be done in such a circumstance to effect a welfare check.

 

[bigger hammer]

Exactly. I mentioned this in an earlier post.

It's not our job to come up with such solutions. Rather, it's the job of individuals to take care of themselves. Had he taken responsiblity firght form the start, this never would have happened. Now that it has, he's trying to point the finger at anyone he can rather than to accept his own screw–up.

It's fascinating how the OP and those who seem to be on the 'other side of the coin'* are more concerned with how the officers were justified than how they displayed so little imagination in finding a way to exercise the prerogative of the husband to authorize a forced-entry welfare check on his wife.

I'd suggest that you harken back to the OP where the question was not "how do the officers verify the man's identity" but was defending the officers for not kicking in the door.

The husband's fear under the circumstances was reasonable and correct as it turned out.

He should have stayed home and taken her to the hospital. It's not up to the police to come up with solutions for every situation that people create. It's great that you're able to do so in the comfort of your living room.

 

[OuTcAsT]

but how hard would it be to identify the person on the phone in less than four hours? Have him drive to the nearest police station and identify himself and place the call from there with a bunch of cops present.

A valid question publius, Let me ask you this, if you are in a city, 4 hours from your home in any direction, could you, with the contents of your wallet, or vehicle;

A. Prove that you live at the address you are interested in and that you are either the owner, or renter on the lease ?

B. Prove that you are legally married to, or co-habitating with any person in that home ?

C. Prove that there is actually an emergency at that address that would require a
forced entry ?

If you can do all those things, ( answer honestly ) then you are well beyond the ability of the average person.

And unless you can do all of those things, to the satisfaction of a police officer, you are right back at square one.

I've already said that I think they should have done more to try to gain access (NOT "break down the door"), by contacting the landlord.

OK, fair enough. Tell ya what, lets test your theory, (if you wish)

Do you rent ? Or have a friend or relative that rents, ?

If so, have someone go to the manager, or super, and tell them you think someone inside may need medical attention, see if they will unlock the door on that premise.
Your findings should prove to be educational.

You mentioned having the police contact the landlord and ask for access, the answer to that question is simple, the police do not have a legal right to do so, and most landlords are not gonna risk a lawsuit from a tenant for opening that door without a warrant to do so.


The what-if's in this story are mind-boggling at the least.
It seems that if someone hears the words "pregnant woman" or "child" that somehow common sense, and legalities go right out the window.

This situation is not that difficult to understand, If it worked the way you imagine it should, then you would never have any expectation of privacy, either in a home you own, or especially in a home you rent.

 

[Wagonman]

It's fascinating how the OP and those who seem to be on the 'other side of the coin'* are more concerned with how the officers were justified than how they displayed so little imagination in finding a way to exercise the prerogative of the husband to authorize a forced-entry

Not our job to use "imagination" unless we have authority to enter which is (a) Authorization to enter from someone a little more legit than a voice on a phone. (b) obvious danger to life. I. E. I see a person in need of assistance through window etc.

Some posters have some convoluted ideas about what the Police should do, how bout simply calling a friend or relative to save the day....repeating myself.

 

[OuTcAsT]

It's fascinating how the OP and those who seem to be on the 'other side of the coin'* are more concerned with how the officers were justified than how they displayed so little imagination in finding a way to exercise the prerogative of the husband to authorize a forced-entry

What I find "fascinating" is that you believe that, from 4 hours away, the husband HAS that prerogative.

Again I ask :

How will he Prove he is the rightful owner, or tenent at that address? Drivers license ? That only says he lives there, nothing more. Unless he happens to have a Deed or Lease with him he is short on proof.

How will he Prove that the woman at the address is his Wife, Girlfriend, etc.? Hope he has his marriage license, Oh ! I know ! a Picture of them together !

How will he prove that this woman even lives there, or exists for that matter?

How will he Prove that there is an emergency, or for that matter, that she is even home ? Car in the driveway ?
Maybe, or, she could have left with someone.

The "imagination" possibilities are boundless.

 

[Old Wanderer]

I almost agree with OUTCAST.

I had a similar situation happen to me 10 years ago. My mother living in another state 7 hours away. Talked to her Thursday night, advised her would not call on Friday, flew home on Saturday, and tried to call. No answer...Tried later, no answer, checked with all close relatives, no body knew anything.

Call the local police for a welfare check....they followed all the steps of above, and could see nothing....but did report seeing her walker...If the walker was there she was there.

I had to call out a locksmith, and have him open the door for the police, ($125). There they found my mother laying on the floor knees bloody from trying to get up for 3 days. She had fallen off the bed hanging up the phone after talking to me on Thursday....

So having a locksmith open the door was the key difference in my case. (And probably cheaper than repairing a kicked in door.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Call the local police for a welfare check....they followed all the steps of above, and could see nothing....but did report seeing her walker...If the walker was there she was there.

Which means they likely looked in a door or window to see the appliance, you knew the significance of the walker and acted on it;

I had to call out a locksmith, and have him open the door for the police, ($125). There they found my mother laying on the floor knees bloody from trying to get up for 3 days. She had fallen off the bed hanging up the phone after talking to me on Thursday....

Those two first words are the gold here. You realized that you had to take responsibility for the situation, the police could not legally call that locksmith any more than they could legally kick the door in. The locksmith only needs to satisfy himself that the bill will be paid for him to legally do his job. A different and higher standard applies to emergency responders.

( I'll bet that once the door was opened the officers merely had to shout, and hear a response from your Mother before they were justified to enter the house)

Also, the thing some folks just don't seem to understand is, if the police officers in the OP had looked in the window and actually seen anything IE: Blood, overturned furniture, the toddler running around, or heard any noise such as a moan, cry, scream, They would have booted the door.

Sorry to hear your Mom had to go through that ordeal and, glad things turned out OK.