Posted on 05/22/2006 7:58:10 AM PDT by NinoFan
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court reaffirmed Monday that police can enter homes in emergencies without knocking or announcing their presence.
Justices said four Brigham City, Utah, police officers were justified in going inside a home in 2000 after peeking through a window and seeing a fight between a teenager and adults.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the unanimous court, said that officers had a reasonable basis for going inside to stop violence.
"The role of a peace officer includes preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only if it becomes too one-sided," Roberts wrote.
The decision overturned a ruling by Utah's Supreme Court that said a trial judge was correct to throw out charges stemming from the police search. The trial judge had ruled that police had violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches by failing to knock before entering the house.
When the adults realized the officers were inside the house, they allegedly became abusive and were charged with disorderly conduct, intoxication and contributing to the delinquency of a minor — all misdemeanors.
In a separate opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said that Utah courts could still find that the police entry was unreasonable under Utah's Constitution. He called it "an odd flyspeck of a case," and said he was unsure why courts had spent so much time on a matter involving minor offenses.
That's a whole other ball of wax, but I completely agree. If I'm sitting in my living room playing a board game with the kids and the door is rammed through, you can't expect me to be a passive observer, regardless of their uniform, armament or disposition.
Ab = an
Sorry
OK,, why didn't the police start screaming at these two geniuses that were fighting as they attempted to gain entry?? Inside a closed house or not, it would have closed the legal loophole.
Did the police think they would gain some form of advantage over the combatants if they remained stealth?
Their objective, as put forth in this article, was to stop a fight. There are more ways to stop a fight then there are food recipes with eggs. These clowns with badges decided their best and safest way to confront this problem was simply taught to them via the WOD. No knock, bust in, take charge, confiscate everything, hand out misdeameanors.
Are we speaking German yet?
how is this any different than previous rulings about
exigent circumstances and a crime in plain view?
seems like a no-brainer.
when you need to beat your wife like a gubmint mule (Allah be praised) , close the curtains.
TIME is on YOUR side. If you're the homeowner and you have a weapon drawn on an assailant, it seems you are the one with the upper hand in the situation, thus you can afford to "wait" a second or three. If you're not the homeowner, are there for inappropriate business, and you decide to challenge an armed officer with a weapon, you deserve the rewards. If I were the homeowner in the latter case, I wouldn't mind officers' knocking as long as they don't stain the walls..
Son, you is messed up....;-)
Today, a violent assault in progress. Tomorrow, a Form 4473 connected to your address. Remember, seat belts are optional, motorcycle helmets will never be mandated, the income tax will not rise above 1%, your social security number will never be used for identification, and the Alternative Minimum Tax is only for a very few, very wealthy people - so you know you can trust government to never expand narrow exceptions they have carved out.
If someone is going to take the trouble to impersonate the police and break in my house and steal my things, they can have them. Everything in my house is replacable except for me. And if they kill me in the process, then my time is up.
I'd rather risk living life free by not shooting a fake cop than risk dying instantly for shooting a real one.
Police were obviously called to the home. When the police arrived they saw a fight and entered to break it up. The parents were drunk, acted stupid and were charged with minor offenses.
Now the parents hire a lawyer and their defense is that the police should have never entered without owner permission. Therefore all the charges should be dropped. How it got to the Supreme Court is beyond me, but it weaved it's way through the courts ending with the 9-0 decision that the police response was reasonable.
Do you think they have the right to break down your door unannouced for a GOOD reason?
There was a fight going on, one of the participants was spitting up blood, and the officers announced themselves prior to entry, but couldn't be heard over the noise of the fight. If they'd stayed outside, and the injured kid had gotten killed, you can bet the media would be crying "why didn't they do something?"
I would only agree with you under perfect circumstances, which only happens in the movies. Here's my logic: No person of "good" should be forcing their way unannounced into my home...period. I should not have to wait to see if this is a "good" intruder. Now, if I do not know the whereabouts of all my resident family members, my reasoning would be altered.
I recall a lot of cop dramas doing the battering ram thing while announcing "POLICE" quite audibly mid-swing. Regardless of the basis in fact, that seems more reasonable than ramming the door and running in like a military operation.
You're right, there's no good reason for unannounced door destruction regardless of the perpetrator. This proves that the government is increasing its scope of power for its own good, in my personal and humble opinion.
Oh no, I think there are good reasons. Somebody pointed out earlier that if a policeman (or any passerby) saw a woman being raped that would be a very good reason for entering sans warrant as fast as possible.
The debate should be about where to draw the line and I'm confident a line will be found.
Gina Holland is married to a top Democrat operative. It was most likely a DNC press release that she relied upon.
" At about 3 a.m., four police officers responded to a call regarding a loud party at a residence. Upon arriving at the house, they heard shouting from inside, and pro- ceeded down the driveway to investigate. There, they observed two juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. They entered the backyard, and saw.through a screen door and windows.an altercation taking place in the kitchen of the home. According to the testimony of one of the officers, four adults were attempting, with some diffi- culty, to restrain a juvenile. The juvenile eventually .broke free, swung a fist and struck one of the adults in the face.. The officer testified that he observed the victim of the blow spitting blood into a nearby sink. App. 40. The other adults con- tinued to try to restrain the juvenile, pressing him up against a refrigerator with such force that the refrigerator began moving across the floor. At this point, an officer opened the screen door and announced the officers. pres- ence. Amid the tumult, nobody noticed. The officer en- tered the kitchen and again cried out, and as the occu- pants slowly became aware that the police were on the scene, the altercation ceased. "
"Meanwhile, I may be dead, but I'm not going to let some power-hungry arm of the state or federal gov't come prancing through my belongings without my express permission."
They'll just go through it in even more detail after they've shot you and anybody standing near you.
Who gets to define "emergency"?
"SCOTUS, eventually."
Good point.
The only ones who possibly can decide that, at the moment it is occuring, are the police. And we trust them to do that correctly because no other option is possible.
The "check" on that is that the "on the spot" decision to use force for an unannounced entry is subject to later review by the courts. And if the police are wrong, they may well get sued or otherwise smacked around by the courts. They naturally want to avoid that, so there's your "check". I mean, why in the world would the police want to blast down the doors of random citizens who've done nothing wrong? There's no possible motivation for them to take the time and energy to do that just for kicks.
The only time they're going to do that is when they have a reasonable, good-faith belief that immediate, unannounced entry is imperative. And we want them to have the ability to do that to prevent the rape/murder/child abuse situation that doesn't leave time to get a warrant or to knock first politely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.