Supreme Court backs police in emergencies

[Eugene]

Posted on Mon, May. 22, 2006

Supreme Court backs police in emergencies

GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press

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 peering 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, even though they could not
announce their arrival over loud noise of a party.

"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.

<snip>

Full article: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14640268.htm

[redqueen]

1. hmmmm... slippery slope, anyone?

is it fascism yet?

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Define "emergency"....

Is it an "emergency" if someone thinks there is imminent danger of a terrorist attack that could be prevented by not bothering with a warrant? What if the police find evidence of some other crime, would it be admissable despite being unrelated to the reason for the warrantless intrusion?

[ThomCat]

3. We're going to see a lot more "emergencies"

that required forced entry without a warrant.

[Kagemusha]

4. Sigh. Without police abuse this would be eminently reasonable.

But I can't say the instant snark is wrong because of how history suggests this will be applied in the real world.

[zann725]

5. The court-endorsed "invasion" of homes begins...

How much longer until?

Police can already search your car WITHOUT a warrant, IF you step outside it while showig your license or talking with them.

What next? Inspect our wombs WITHOUT warrant?

[moobu2]

6. This is really nothing new

SCOTUS simply reaffirmed the status quo that police have the right to enter private premises without warrant or announcement when they have a reasonable belief that a crime is taking place, or that evidence of a crime is being destroyed. The “reasonable belief” standard can be abused, like many things can be, I guess, but this is really nothing new.

[951-Riverside]

7. "or announcing their presence."

This is the most creepy part of the ruling IMO.

[Kagemusha]

8. You're familiar with the case, right?...

Context was shouting over a very loud party.

The fact the officers were shouting at the top of their lungs was taken as their being reasonable enough. The fact no one heard them because the music was just that loud wasn't considered a knock against them and they were not required to go get some industrial strength bullhorn or something to compensate.

In different circumstances, what is reasonable would change.

[951-Riverside]

9. Sorry.

I just had this idea in my head that somehow the ruling meant they could sneak into my house without saying a damn thing.

Thanks for clearing it up

[Kagemusha]

10. Sneak, no. But this ruling can certainly be abused

But the ruling certainly appears at a glance - given what I'd heard about the case going in, thanks to an extensive article or two - to be more about enabling police to BARGE IN citing an emergency situation. Sneaking costs time which is the exact opposite of what one would do in an emergency, save perhaps, getting position on a hostage taker or something like that which certainly is a legitimate emergency situation.

The problem is, it's really, really hard to look at the exact case in question and not side with the police. One can argue "hard cases make bad law" here. But the bottom line is, the police should not have required a spare F-16 to fly over and cause a sonic boom in order to alert party-goers to their presence.

But, they decided to enter and announce their presence again, on the inside. Normally that would be a grave no-no. However, if the noise is so great that cops can't yell above it, one could reasonably appreciate that they'd figure, hey, this sound violates ordinances, people's ears are being hurt. I mean they can't even hear us! .. That sort of thing.

That may be reasonable, but 999 other cases citing similar logic might not be, and one must be concerned at how lower courts will deal with those. But, Roberts is a minimalist and will regard that as someone else's problem, for better or worse.

[fshrink]

11. The main problem here,

and this is really elementary, is that such opinions abolish a limit without setting a new one. There has been a flurry of events lately that systematically take a chunk off of what was once the block of individual rights. Exceptions tend to become the rule. And the rule progressively takes shape: whatever you do, whoever you are, regardless of the situation, there will be one legal way to isolate you from society so that the forces of order can examine you at their leisure and to control you. This is obviously the implementation of an agenda, not the independent evolution of the Law. The so-called "Supreme" Court has evolved into the simple expression of a faction.

[brooklynite]

12. Lets take a look at how our "FR-iends" are responding...

BULL$H!T! They come into my home unannounced and will be promptly greeted with a .308 warning shot. Any further attempts will be met with extreme resistance. You don't knock down the door of my home and expect me to be placid!

- - -

I would be inclined to encourage people to feel free to shoot someone bearing a gun bashing through someone's front door unannounced.

- - -

At the same time, do a home invasion on my house and Mr 454 is going go through you, your body armor, the front wall and probably the car you drove up in.

- - -

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.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1636316/posts

This should help shore up the base...

[951-Riverside]

13. HAHAHAHAAHAHAH! OMG! *cough* *cough* HAHAHA!

:rofl:

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. They obviously didn't get the subcode: Libruls only!

[AX10]

15. While it is understandable that a "warrentless entry" may be needed...

in rare cases, the question remains: What is considered to be an "emergency"?

[HuffleClaw]

16. a reasonable decision that will of course be abuse by UNreasonable

'authorities'.

[silvertip]

17. Peering through windows?

   I always thought that was done by voyeurs.

[gerrilea]

18. Sad part is that this decision was a unanimous decision....

[Kablooie]

19. It may be a slippery slope but it's one that I think we need.

If police see a crime being committed I agree that they should have the ability to enter and stop the crime.
Yes it could be abused and of course we want to keep as many of these toys away from the administration as we can
but this particular case seems reasonable. The line between reasonable and unreasonable I'm afraid is something
a court will have to decide on a case by case basis.

Just cross your fingers and hope that the courts remain relatively unbiased.