# NC: Cops pepper spray black foster son of white family **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 8, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795 "2014-10-08T20:17:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 35
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/681 "2014-10-14T22:36:45Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s not remotely the standard I’m suggesting. Can you expand on what standard you are suggesting, and in what situations it should apply? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/682 "2014-10-14T22:47:32Z")
While I wait for **Bricker** to hopefully address my response to _Reardon_, here’s more info that suggests Currie has a legitimate complaint against the State. From [Police Procedures for a Burglary in Progress]([Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation | Legal Beagle](http://www.ehow.com/list_6799612_police-procedures-burglary-progress.html) [URL="[Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation | Legal Beagle](http://www.ehow.com/list_6799612_police-procedures-burglary-progress.html)) > [@](#): > > Police officers should immediately create the best perimeter around the area while looking around the property and at windows and doors for signs of forced entry. If they see signs of forced entry, such as a broken window or broken door frame, officers have probable cause to enter the property and investigate whether there is a burglar inside the home. **If they do not see signs of forced entry, then officers should monitor all the doors to the residence and see if they can open them or not.** If there are not enough officers to effectively monitor all the doors, then they should wait outside until more officers arrive. Notice two things: 1) the advisement that LE only enter premises if they have probable cause for B&E, and 2) the reference to _Reardon_ at the bottom of the page. What **Bricker** has held up as precedence for lawful warrantless entry actually supports the opposite–that a 911 call and ajar door are insufficient probable cause for what amounts to a knockless raid. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/683 "2014-10-14T23:16:30Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > This is a much better case, so thanks for introducing it (and here’s the [link](http://openjurist.org/811/f2d/1025#fn3) for the folks following along at home). > > But again, I’m perplexed by your choice in cases. This one seems to neatly destroy your own argument. After wading through its legalese and excruitiating double negatives, this is what caught my eye: > > > [@](#): > > > > On the other hand, defendants [the cops] argue that these facts are not outcome determinative. Instead, they claim the following uncontroverted facts support a finding that there was sufficient information to justify the entry. They point to the fact that there was a radio call indicating a burglary was in progress;3 a lone car was parked near the house in the driveway despite the fact that the university students were on Christmas break; the police were aware that burglaries tend to occur during this time of year; and finally, the rear door to the house was, at the very least, unlocked. However, this argument ignores the contrary inferences a jury could reasonably draw from the facts disputed by plaintiffs. Therefore, based on the information available to the police, summary judgment for defendants would clearly be improper. > > And most importantly, this: > > > [@](#): > > > > As stated in our analysis of probable cause, it is clear that defendants’ conclusions with respect to the existence of probable cause could be found to be objectively unreasonable when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Therefore defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. > > … > > The court’s conclusion couldn’t be clearer. The really interesting thing is they had a little more objective evidence than in Currie’s situation, and yet the court still found it lacking. Amazing. You are interpreting Reardon incorrectly. Your first quote of the opinion is from paragraph 12. If you read paragraph 7, it indicates what standards it is applying when considering summary judgment. Essentially, if there is a difference of opinion in a section 1983 suit, courts are hesitant to make a determination since the standard is reasonableness which is for a jury to determine. This does not draw a conclusion on the merits. Your second quote suffers from the same erroneous logic. Paragraph 16 is describing whether the defendants (police) are protected by qualified immunity. Again, the standard here among other things is reasonableness. Therefore, that has to be determined and the place to do that is with the jury. None of these speak to exigent circumstances. That is discussed in paragraphs 14 and 15. Those read in part: > [@](#): > > Where, as here, the police are called upon to respond to a crime reported to be in progress, we recognize that the police judgments should be afforded an extra degree of deference. > > … > > Thus defendants’ conclusions regarding certain disputed evidence at the scene of the incident, which plaintiffs argue should have mitigated a finding of exigency, are judged in light of this standard and the other circumstances that confronted them. Defendants were faced with a call reporting a burglary in progress during a time of year when the students were on break and burglaries were known to occur more frequently. And when they arrived they found a single car in the driveway and the door to the residence unlocked. **Therefore, despite the possible existence of certain mitigating considerations raised in our discussion of probable cause, we conclude based on these facts that the exigency requirement was satisfied as a matter of law.** (my bold) This isn’t even an open door, just one that is unlocked. You are wrong on the law. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/684 "2014-10-14T23:37:06Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Your second quote suffers from the same erroneous logic. Paragraph 16 is describing whether the defendants (police) are protected by qualified immunity. Again, the standard here among other things is reasonableness. Therefore, that has to be determined and the place to do that is with the jury. Did you look at what constitutes the grounds for qualified immunity? I don’t think you did. From [here](http://definitions.uslegal.com/q/qualified-immunity/): > [@](#): > > The qualified immunity test requires a two-part analysis: “(1) Was the law governing the official’s conduct clearly established? (2) Under that law, could a reasonable officer have believed the conduct was lawful?” Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages **as long as as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.** The cops failed to meet the burden for probable cause based on an analysis of **objective** facts, and thus, the citizens were within their rights to sue the cops for violating their constitution protections. This flies in the face all your proclamations that reacting to a 911 call and open door is clearly constitutional behavior. It ain’t. Was there a follow up suit that establishes whether the jury found the cops had probable cause? I’m sure that **Bricker** would’ve supplied this if it exists. IANAL, but it is likely the cops, upon losing immunity, settled out of court, which is why the record stops there. > [@](#): > > None of these speak to exigent circumstances. My belief is that there was not probable cause to enter Currie’s home. Both probable cause and exigent circumstances have to be met for warrantless entry. _Reardon_ is the case that comes closest to matching Currie’s situation, and yet the court did not determine the cops acted lawfully because of the janky facts for probable cause they asserted. > [@](#): > > You are wrong on the law. Not taking your word for anything, since from the beginning you treated it like a given the cops acted lawfully. Obviously this is a lot more complicated than what you’ve suggested. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/685 "2014-10-14T23:43:21Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Can you expand on what standard you are suggesting, and in what situations it should apply? Well, you quoted it. If there is someone who has not committed a crime, they should do everything they can to keep that person from having force employed against them. BUt maybe if I rephrase it’d help: Police should do everything they can to avoid applying force to someone who, absent police intervention, is abiding by the law. In a situation in which it’s unknown whether you’re dealing with a criminal or a law-abiding citizen, the police should **balance** the interest of treating the subject with respect and civility and de-escalating behavior with the interest of maintaining control of the situation. In most instances, these two interests will be confluent, since otherwise law-abiding citizens are likelier to remain in control if they are treated with respect and civility. In any instance in which police apply force to someone who was, absent police intervention, abiding by the law, something went wrong; police should review procedures to see if there’s something different they could have done that would also have been appropriate behavior if the subject of the force had been a criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/686 "2014-10-15T00:01:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They are not trying to de-escalate - they are investigating whether or not there has been a burglary. That’s their primary concern - if this stranger the neighbor reported breaking into a house, who has (apparently) lied about his address and gets peevish when questioned, is a burglar or not. Wouldn’t their primary concern be safety, their own and that of others? It seems to me that if the police don’t attempt de-escalation, they’re going to either be pepper-spraying suspects (or whatever other means of defence they have) a lot, or failing to protect themselves a lot. Or both. Even if investigation _was_ the primary concern, it seems as though having to defend oneself is going to interrupt that goal. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/687 "2014-10-15T00:10:08Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Did you look at what constitutes the grounds for qualified immunity? I don’t think you did. Really? Because I highlighted it. Part of the standard is reasonableness - a question posed to a jury. > [@](#): > > My belief is that there was not probable cause to enter Currie’s home. Both probable cause and exigent circumstances have to be met for warrantless entry. _Reardon_ is the case that comes closest to matching Currie’s situation, and yet the court did not determine the cops acted lawfully because of the janky facts for probable cause they asserted. I understand this is what you believe. You are wrong. Again from Reardon: > [@](#): > > Therefore, despite the possible existence of certain mitigating considerations raised in our discussion of probable cause, we conclude based on these facts that the exigency requirement was satisfied as a matter of law. The court concluded that based on the facts in that case [Reardon] a reasonable belief of burglary in progress constituted exigent circumstances supporting a warrantless entry. Are you asserting that there were no exigent circumstances and the entry was not supported by the 4th amendment in Reardon? > [@](#): > > Not taking your word for anything, since from the beginning you treated it like a given the cops acted lawfully. Obviously this is a lot more complicated than what you’ve suggested. Actually no. Exactly zero\* people in this thread agree with you on the law. \*I may be exaggerating this. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/688 "2014-10-15T00:12:58Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > It seems to me that if the police don’t attempt de-escalation, they’re going to either be pepper-spraying suspects (or whatever other means of defence they have) a lot, or failing to protect themselves a lot. Keep in mind that according to Taylor’s dubious, self-serving report, he didn’t pepper spray Currie until Currie got three inches away from his face. People have talked about how Currie was lucky he didn’t get shot; Currie is lucky to the exact same extent that Taylor is lucky he didn’t get beaten to death. If Currie had actually intended harm, I don’t think Taylor could have pulled out the spray before Currie crossed those extra three inches. Again, de-escalation would have given Taylor more control over the situation. It’s only Currie’s forbearance that kept the situation from getting a whole lot worse. (Although frankly I doubt it went down the way Taylor describes; more likely IMO, Taylor decided to handcuff Currie because Currie wouldn’t sit down, and made up all that shit about Currie getting in his face because Taylor was being ridiculous in a Respect Mah Authoriteh fashion). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/689 "2014-10-15T00:30:52Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > This is a much better case, so thanks for introducing it (and here’s the [link](http://openjurist.org/811/f2d/1025#fn3) for the folks following along at home). > > But again, I’m perplexed by your choice in cases. This one seems to neatly destroy your own argument. After wading through its legalese and excruitiating double negatives, this is what caught my eye: > > And most importantly, this: > > But not probable cause! The court’s conclusion couldn’t be clearer. The really interesting thing is they had a little more objective evidence than in Currie’s situation, and yet the court still found it lacking. Amazing. You’re not quite correct. I quoted Reardon to show that the facts support exigency. The court in Reardon was ruling on a summary judgement motion, as opposed to an appeal after a trial. The court did NOT find probable cause lacking. It said that there were two versions of the facts: the police officers’ and the fraternity residents’. Thus, the court said, a trial was needed. See, if I sue you, one of your defensive moves is to ask for a “summary judgement.” Basically that’s you saying, "Hey, all the stuff he says happened, I deny. But even if it all happened the way he said it did, he STILL doesn’t have enough to make me liable. So I move for _summary judgement_, a finding that we don’t even need a trial, because the purpose of a trial is to establish facts – what happened? If all the facts the plaintiffs claimed as true are found to be true, and those facts still don’t add up to liability, then there’s no point in having a trial! That’s what the appeals court was addressing in Reardon. The police had won summary judgement. The students appealed that summary judgement. The appeals court said: on these facts, the police are absolutely entitled to exigent circumstances. They aren’t entitled to probable cause, because the students’ facts don’t support probable cause – the police version does. But when considering a motion for summary judgement, the court assumes that all well-pleaded facts from the non-prevailing party are true. So I wanted to get the exigency issue out of the way before we moved on to probable cause. To do that, I showed you a case in which the court was liberally construing the facts AGAINST the police and in favor of the students. Even in that construction, the court found exigent circumstances. So if you agree that the Currie facts support exigent circumstances, we can now move on to discussing probable cause. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/690 "2014-10-15T00:43:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re not quite correct. I quoted Reardon to show that the facts support exigency. The court in Reardon was ruling on a summary judgement motion, as opposed to an appeal after a trial. The court did NOT find probable cause lacking. > > It said that there were two versions of the facts: the police officers’ and the fraternity residents’. Thus, the court said, a trial was needed. > > See, if I sue you, one of your defensive moves is to ask for a “summary judgement.” Basically that’s you saying, "Hey, all the stuff he says happened, I deny. But even if it all happened the way he said it did, he STILL doesn’t have enough to make me liable. So I move for _summary judgement_, a finding that we don’t even need a trial, because the purpose of a trial is to establish facts – what happened? If all the facts the plaintiffs claimed as true are found to be true, and those facts still don’t add up to liability, then there’s no point in having a trial! > > That’s what the appeals court was addressing in Reardon. The police had won summary judgement. The students appealed that summary judgement. The appeals court said: on these facts, the police are absolutely entitled to exigent circumstances. > > They aren’t entitled to probable cause, because the students’ facts don’t support probable cause – the police version does. But when considering a motion for summary judgement, the court assumes that all well-pleaded facts from the non-prevailing party are true. > > So I wanted to get the exigency issue out of the way before we moved on to probable cause. To do that, I showed you a case in which the court was liberally construing the facts AGAINST the police and in favor of the students. Even in that construction, the court found exigent circumstances. > > So if you agree that the Currie facts support exigent circumstances, we can now move on to discussing probable cause. I love you, Bricker, but this is why no one sane goes into law. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/691 "2014-10-15T01:09:57Z")
> [@Bouncer](#): > > Well in NC it’s not your right to do so to anyone, police or otherwise: No, your citation does not support your broad assertion > [@](#): > > (2) Makes or uses any utterance, gesture, display or abusive language which is intended and plainly likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace. > > Pretty sure that threatening to beat someone ass falls under that. Actually, no, no such broad conclusion is valid. According to your cite, the abusive language must (1) be “intended” and “plainly likely” to “provoke violent retaliation”—simply cursing at the cops does not by itself reflect such and intent, and, cops are allowed to use force only for certain purposes, and “retaliation” isn’t one of them. So even if you could show that he intended to provoke violent retaliation, you can _never_ say that cursing at a cop is “plainly likely” to provoke violent retaliation. (2) And it must be “intended” and “plainly likely” to “cause a breach of the peace.” He’s in a private home, not in public, and the only people there are cops, so there’s no possibility of his causing a breach of the peace, whether intended or not. On top of which, the duty of a cop is to prevent breaches of the peace, so there is no way that cursing at a cop can be plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace. If it happens, then the cops have failed at their jobs and have likely committed a violation. > [@](#): > > Police have no obligation to be your verbal punching bag. Neither do firefighters, paramedics or any other emergency personnel. They fucking better have that obligation. Emergency personnel have very specific roles an duties. They are want to respond to emergencies and in emergencies it is very likely that someone will be agitated for one reason or another. Cops and other emergency personnel have the moral duty to take whatever verbal shit anyone throws at them and remain professional. > [@](#): > > No one would take the damn job if they had to put up with that level of behavior. They wouldn’t do that job because people might say mean things to them? Then they shouldn’t do that job and we should find and train people who will put up with it. It’s clear to me that a big part of the problem we have in all these police situations is that cops are not properly trained. > [@](#): > > Hell we wouldn’t expect a barista at Starbucks to put up with that, WHY should we expect a cop to do so? If a Starbucks barista burst in unannounced into someone’s private home, fuck, yeah, we’d expect him to put up with whatever verbal shit a legal occupant chose to subject him to. If someone goes to a Starbucks and starts verbally abusing people, that’s a completely different situation and none of the context or factors apply to the cops who are on the job. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/692 "2014-10-15T01:42:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The court concluded that based on the facts in that case [Reardon] a reasonable belief of burglary in progress constituted exigent circumstances supporting a warrantless entry. Are you asserting that there were no exigent circumstances and the entry was not supported by the 4th amendment in Reardon? For the 100th time, cops must have probable cause _and_ exigent circumstances for warrantless entry. _Reardon_ furnishes the former for a burglary in progress, but also indicates that probable cause was not clearly established by the objective facts supplied the cops in that particular case. Because those objective facts are damn near similar to Currie’s situation, anyone who is arguing that the cops in his case were allowed to conduct a warrantless entry needs to put up something that counters what was expressed in _Reardon_. That evidence remains unsupplied ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/693 "2014-10-15T01:49:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re not quite correct. I quoted Reardon to show that the facts support exigency. But why would you bother to do this when my issue was clearly stated in the post you responded to. Here is it again: > [@ywtf](#): > > I agree that this case comes close to Currie’s **but what it has that Currie’s doesn’t is objective facts to support a break in.** Even though the cop had good reason to believe the property was empty, according to the records, he still took care to announce himself before barging in. The cops in Currie’s case did not and that is a key reason why I can’t say they lawfully entered his residence. > [@](#): > > The court in Reardon was ruling on a summary judgement motion, as opposed to an appeal after a trial. The court did NOT find probable cause lacking. They found it too questionable to grant the defendants qualified immunity. Which means the onus is still on you show that a 911 call similar to Currie’s and an ajar door is sufficient grounds for a warrantless entry. > [@](#): > > So if you agree that the Currie facts support exigent circumstances, we can now move on to discussing probable cause. Yes, please discuss probable cause. In case it’s not clear, I agree that cops can enter a home if they have probable cause for a burglary. My beef is I don’t think they had probable cause for burglary. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/694 "2014-10-15T02:39:25Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Shouting. Mouthing off. That’s all the excuse they need, huh? :dubious: That’s not what I said. I said it was consistent with the police report. If you read the report you’ll see that it was far more than shouting and mouthing off. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/695 "2014-10-15T12:23:37Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Facts are, by definition, plausible. He lived there, so his claim that he lived there was absolutely plausible. Police cannot make determinations based on facts they don’t have. That’s why they investigate. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/696 "2014-10-15T12:24:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Police cannot make determinations based on facts they don’t have. That’s why they investigate. > > Regards, > Shodan They did have this fact – he told them. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/697 "2014-10-15T12:29:17Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Wouldn’t their primary concern be safety, their own and that of others? Yes, that’s why they were investigating a report of a possible burglary, in a neighborhood that had suffered a number of recent burglaries and auto thefts. That’s also why they cuffed him - he had snapped, was ranting and threatening. So they cuffed him so he wouldn’t escape and pose a threat to others and so he did not carry out his threats against them. He resisted the cuffing, so they used pepper spray (instead of Tasers or nightsticks or guns). > [@](#): > > It seems to me that if the police don’t attempt de-escalation, they’re going to either be pepper-spraying suspects (or whatever other means of defence they have) a lot, or failing to protect themselves a lot. Or both. Even if investigation _was_ the primary concern, it seems as though having to defend oneself is going to interrupt that goal. Again, they cuffed him because he was threatening them, to prevent him from carrying out his threats and thus making defense necessary. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/698 "2014-10-15T12:31:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They did have this fact – he told them. And since the report of the neighbor and his own ID (and the lack of pictures) all contradicted him, it would have been silly to accept this as a fact at face value. That’s why they were investigating - to determine if it were a fact or not. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/699 "2014-10-15T12:34:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And since the report of the neighbor and his own ID (and the lack of pictures) all contradicted him, it would have been silly to accept this as a fact at face value. > > That’s why they were investigating - to determine if it were a fact or not. It was still plausible. Facts are always plausible. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795/700 "2014-10-15T12:56:27Z")
I came across a lawyer’s (self-professed, of course) opinion in a discussion about Henry Louis Gates, after he too found a cop in his home uninvited. His/her analysis of _Reardon_ is in accord with mine, and so is their take down on probable cause. See [here](http://www.copinthehood.com/2009/07/question-for-readers.html). > [@Anon](#): > > \*\* If the police get a call about possible B&E there is not probable cause to go in at that point.\*\* > > Rather, police are supposed to go to the house and look for signs that someone did break in, and **also see if the homeowners are home**. Whether there is probable cause or not is dependent on this additional investigation at the scene. > > If someone shows up and claims to be the homeowner, **you are not going to have probable cause** until the purported homeowner either says: “yes, my wife has him at gunpoint in the living room,” or else does something inconsistent with being the homeowner (like, say, failing to id). > > The point is, if the homeowner comes to the door, then the conversation about the homeowner getting id should occur with the policeman outside and the purported homeowner inside. > > The fact that someone claiming to be the homeowner is there would dominates probable cause analysis from the moment this character appears in the story. If the homeowner acts like the homeowner, then that erases probable cause, at least until the homeowner does something inconsistent with being the homeowner like refusing to have his wife fetch his id. > > \*\*The problem with Officer Crowley is that he did not ask for id until he had already violated the Fourth Amendment by coming in non-consensually. \*\*From that time forward Sgt. Crowley was a trespasser, and \*\*Gates was privileged, of course, to act tumultously in expelling a trespasser. \*\*Sgt. Crowley messed up. Here is his/her interpretation of _Reardon_ as expressed in response to a cop-defender: > [@Anon](#): > > “I can’t say enough how wrong it is to say that the officer didn’t have legal justification to be in that house.” > > Um, no PCM, you are incorrect. \*\*See, Reardon v. Wroan, 811 F.2d 1025 (7th Cir. 1987) \*\*( **Probable cause required and not automatically provided by 911 burglary call** ); In re Sealed Case, 153 F.3d 759 (DC Cir 1998) (suggesting, in dicta that probable cause to enter would be extinguished by homeowner id’ing himself at stuck door). No one has yet been successful in refuting this analysis by citing _relevant_ case law. All I’ve seen from the pack of yall is assertions that the cops had the right to enter, but with no evidence bearing this out. **Bricker** has made the most gallant effort and still has fallen short. So short in fact that he actually lent support to my side of the argument, not his. So this makes me wonder: Why in the hell are so many you adamant that Currie’s rights weren’t violated? This board’s capacity for critical thought is obviously not what it’s chalked up to be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795.md?page=34) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nc-cops-pepper-spray-black-foster-son-of-white-family/700795.md?page=36)