close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Exigent home entry---SCOTUS covers rules

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by Sam Spade, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,924
    2,399
    May 4, 2003
    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.
     

  2. teleblaster

    teleblaster

    157
    0
    Mar 13, 2011
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012
  3. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,924
    2,399
    May 4, 2003
    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.
     
  4. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,737
    3,331
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    :cool:
     
  5. For those of us that live under the thumbprint of the 9th, this doesn't surprise us.
     
  6. tcruse

    tcruse

    266
    4
    Jun 10, 2011
    "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.
     
  7. Newcop761

    Newcop761 CLM

    3,260
    382
    Jan 29, 2001
    In Existential Crisis
    I find it amazing that judges that are correct about 6% of the time are still employed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2012
  8. Newcop761

    Newcop761 CLM

    3,260
    382
    Jan 29, 2001
    In Existential Crisis
    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
     
  9. Pepper45

    Pepper45

    2,086
    1
    Jun 15, 2006
    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.
     
  10. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,623
    1,941
    Jul 12, 2007
    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
     
  11. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,623
    1,941
    Jul 12, 2007
    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?

    "Do you have any guns in the house?"

    [​IMG] To-may-to
    To-mah-toe

    :shocked: Investigations of purported threats of shooting up a school should wait for CPS and courts?

    Randy
     
  12. tcruse

    tcruse

    266
    4
    Jun 10, 2011
    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.
     
  13. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade Staff Member Lifetime Member

    14,924
    2,399
    May 4, 2003
    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?
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2012
  14. Dukeboy01

    Dukeboy01 Pretty Ladies!

    2,735
    463
    Apr 30, 2000
    Lexington, KY
    In KY, a principal "allowing" bullying doesn't really meet the definition of Endangering the Welfare of a Minor, which is a misdemeanor offense.

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

    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.
     
  15. tcruse

    tcruse

    266
    4
    Jun 10, 2011
    "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.