NC: Cops pepper spray black foster son of white family

[ElvisL1ves]

@Steophan

They didn’t assault him, and he was doing more than yelling.

You have facts that contradict the police report itself, do you?

his actions added further evidence.

Please expound on this. :dubious:

The police don’t take orders from suspected criminals, for fuck’s sake.

The guy lived there, for fuck’s sake.

[Morgenstern]

@you_with_the_face

So that whole 4th amendment stuff is just optional nonsense. Ok.

Until you can supply a cite saying knockless entry, sans warrant, is legal when responding to a complaint for which there is no physical evidence sufficient to believe a crime is occurring and there’s imminent harm to the public, why should anyone take your position seriously?

You do understand the difference between search and seizure and arrest don’t you?

[Terr]

@ElvisL1ves

Did this neighbor not know that was a foster home? That teens of all kinds moved in and out with some regularity? Or did that just not matter until he saw a black one?

No, the neighbor did not. See the police report.

[you_with_the_face]

@Morgenstern

You do understand the difference between search and seizure and arrest don’t you?

Are you saying the cops weren’t subject to the same legalities that govern search and seizure? Support that with something.

A cop cannot enter your home without your permission and roam through without a warrant and/or a qualifying circumstance. “I saw an unknown black person entering a home” is not one of those circumstances.

[Bone]

@you_with_the_face

So that whole 4th amendment stuff is just optional nonsense. Ok.

Until you can supply a cite saying knockless entry, sans warrant, is legal when responding to a complaint for which there is no physical evidence sufficient to believe a crime is occurring and there’s imminent harm to the public, why should anyone take your position seriously?

Let’s see, there’s 449 F. 3d 741 - United States v. Brown:

The exigent circumstances exception [to the warrant requirement] relies on the premise that the existence of an emergency situation, demanding urgent police action, may excuse the failure to procure a search warrant." United States v. Radka, 904 F.2d 357, 361 (6th Cir.1990). To justify a warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances, there must also be probable cause to enter the residence. United States v. Johnson, 9 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1511 n. 6 (6th Cir.1988)). Probable cause is defined as “reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof but more than mere suspicion.” United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir. 1990). This determination must be made from the totality of the circumstances, based on the objective facts known to the officer at the time. United States v. Ferguson, 8 F.3d 385, 391-92 (6th Cir.1993). In determining whether sufficient exigent circumstances exist to justify the warrantless entry and search or seizure, the court must “consider the totality of the circumstances and the `inherent necessities of the situation at the time.'” Rohrig, 98 F.3d at 1511 (quoting Johnson, 9 F.3d at 508) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the scope of the intrusion must be circumscribed by the exigencies that justified the warrantless search. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978).

…

Pikeville Police Officer Chris Edmonds was dispatched to defendant’s residence to respond to the first alarm and was advised of the second alarm before he arrived. Edmonds had never been to defendant’s residence before that date and did not know if defendant had previously experienced any problems with his security system.2 Edmonds could hear the alarm announcing in a loud voice “basement door entry,” and Smith advised him to check the basement door. Edmonds, following protocol for investigating burglar alarms, made a cursory check of the premises. He checked the front door first, which was locked, and then walked around to the back. Edmonds saw no car in the driveway, and did not find any broken or pried-open doors or windows.

12
When Edmonds approached the exterior basement door, however, he saw that it was ajar approximately 12 inches. Smith, defendant’s neighbor, testified that she also saw that the basement door was “opened some.” The district court found, “**ased on the testimony of Edmonds, corroborated by the testimony of Mrs. Smith, an impartial observer, [that] the outer basement door was opened approximately 12 inches, wide enough for Edmonds to fit his head inside.” The district court added in a footnote that:

13
Although Defendant alleges in his memoranda that the “basement door was not open but was breathing in and out due to the high winds” (Doc # 15 at 5), the Court has specifically found that the basement door was opened approximately twelve inches. While the effect of winds may be an explanation for the multiple activations and restorations of the outer basement door alarm, this plausible explanation has no effect on the Court’s decision upholding the warrantless entry based on exigent circumstances.

14
Seeing the door ajar made Edmonds concerned for his safety and that of others. Thinking that a burglary might be in progress and with his weapon and flashlight in hand, Edmonds entered the basement to conduct a protective sweep and check for intruders. At 2:22 p.m., ABCO was alerted that the motion detector in the basement had been activated. Using his flashlight, Edmonds looked around and could see an interior door at the back of the basement.

…
22
Next, defendant contests the district court’s finding that entry into his residence was justified by exigent circumstances. This and other circuits have held that an officer may lawfully enter a residence without a warrant under the exigent circumstances exception when the officer reasonably believes a burglary is in progress. United States v. Estese, 479 F.2d 1273, 1274 (6th Cir.1973) (holding warrantless search of residence was justified because there was probable cause to believe burglary was in progress); see also Johnson, 9 F.3d at 509 (noting that several other circuits “have upheld warrantless searches conducted during burglary investigations under the rubric of exigent circumstances”) (citing cases). When probable cause exists to believe a burglary is in progress, officers are presented with exigent circumstances justifying their warrantless entry into the residence “because `*t would defy reason to suppose that [the officers] had to secure a warrant before investigating, leaving the putative burglars free to complete their crime unmolested.'” Johnson, 9 F.3d at 510 (quoting United States v. Singer, 687 F.2d 1135, 1144 (8th Cir.1982) (alterations in original), adopted in relevant part, 710 F.2d 431 (8th Cir. 1983) (en banc)).

Granted this case the officer was responding to an alarm call - but I contend it’s not much different than a 911 call from a neighbor. In any case, we have here an example that fits your criteria. There was no warrant, no knocking entry (though the officer did check the front door which was locked), an open door without physical evidence of forced entry, and no imminent harm to the public (though there is a property interest to protect).

The totality of the circumstances is what is used to evaluate whether or not exigent circumstances exist. You may disagree that they did in this case, but that would be for a court to determine.

I do legitimately bemoan the general assault on the fourth amendment but in doing so I think it’s important to acknowledge what the current law permits. That doesn’t mean that I agree with it.

[Terr]

@you_with_the_face

Are you saying the cops weren’t subject to the same legalities that govern search and seizure? Support that with something.

A cop cannot enter your home and roam through without a warrant and a qualifying circumstance. “I saw an unknown black person entering a home” is not one of those circumstances.

Question, ywtf. Is warrantless search a crime? Not tresspassing (since we already established the cops are not guilty of that, I gave you a cite) but the warrantless search itself. Is it a crime? Can you give me the law that makes it a crime?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Terr

See the police report.

Have you yet?

[Typo_Negative]

@you_with_the_face

There’s no need for us to wait for all the “facts to come out”, Typo. All the information needed to damn the cops is present in their own report.

Wait. Is this one of those ‘It’s obvious and if you don’t agree then you’re stupid!’ moments?

I’m seeing a lot of disagreements on things of a legal factual nature. I keep hoping one of our legal Eagles will come in with some clarity. Even then, there could be disagreements. Lawyers on both sides have gotten rich arguing what a particular part of a law means.

I also see a lot of he said\he said in the description of events. Maybe one of them’s lying. Maybe both are lying but for different reasons. Maybe neither are lying but saw things in a very different way. Perception can be a bitch!

Would it kill us to wait a couple of days and see if there other developments (or least better reporting) before pick sides and weapons for dueling?

[you_with_the_face]

@Bone

Granted this case the officer was responding to an alarm call - but I contend it’s not much different than a 911 call from a neighbor.

Yes it is. Very much so. In the case you cited, there was objective evidence of a break in: the alarm went off. Not once, but twice. “Objective facts’” are a necessary condition for knockless entry without a warrant.

There was also a basement door that was cracked open in such a way that it was reasonable to think someone might have squeezed their way inside. By its description, it sounds like the door was chained and was “breathing open”. In other words, not a door that was simply left open, but rather a door that could have been pried open.

In Currie’s case, what objective evidence elevated the event beyond mere suspicion? That’s the question here. If we take the cops at their word (and I seriously think anyone who does is hopelessly stupid, but whatever), the only thing that signaled anything unusual was a door that was ajar 4 inches. Not enough for anyone to squeeze through. There were no signs of forced entry, no alarms, presumably not even a claim of breaking and entering.

In any case, we have here an example that fits your criteria.

Nice try but it doesn’t fit. The fact that someone saw fit to publish a record of the case you cited suggests that this shit is a big deal. There was a lawsuit, in other words.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Steophan

Good for them. I’d hope if my neighbours ever call the police about a suspected burglary at my place they’d do the same. The police don’t take orders from suspected criminals, for fuck’s sake.

Whereas, see, no matter how stupid my neighbors are, I hope cops never burst into my home with guns drawn and frisk my children, scaring the shit out of them and humiliating them, when no crime has been committed.

This is happening in the wake of Ferguson. Imagine you’re a black dude who has a traumatic history, and you’ve been paying attention to Ferguson, and this might happen to you. You’d seriously hope the cops would follow the protocol they followed here?

[Bouncer]

@Eonwe

I think there is a dramatic difference between a burglary call and a suspected burglary call reported by the neighbors, whose only evidence is entry of the house by someone they didn’t recognize.

If the neighbor had seen someone break in, then entering the house with guns out is appropriate. There is no evidence of burglary when the cops show up.

Yes there IS evidence of a burglary. An eye witness statement of someone who has some familiarity with the homeowners describing a person they are NOT familiar with entering the home while the occupants are apparently away. That’s prima facie evidence of a burglary in progress. Look, here’s a case from Chicago where the police received a tip of a burglary in progress, entered a home through an open door without a warrant or permission. ERMAHGERD!!! How dare they! Yeah, by doing so they ended up interrupting a home invasion in progress.

Police Interrupt Home Invasion; 4 Held

It should have been a house-call to make sure everything was above board. Knock on the front door. Say hello. Introduce yourselves. Ask some questions.

So what if the burglar/home invader declines to answer the door? Now what? Stand around all day? Do you have the police just leave? Do you then excoriate them for not realizing that the home invasion robbery they just walked away from led to the rape and murder of a parent and their child?

Granted, the above is a worst case hypothesis, but the police DO interrupt home invasions (as above). Using your guidance, they wouldn’t. They’d walk away when no one answered the door or stand around drinking coffee until another call came in, or something.

It comes down to this. Once the 911 call is made by the neighbor that a strange person he doesn’t recognize has entered the premises they have an obligation to fully investigate. When they find an obvious open entrance into the house they have a continued obligation to investigate.

This isn’t a game of infant peek-a-boo where they only take action if they see something directly. It’s a response to and an investigation of a reported ongoing crime.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bouncer

This isn’t a game of infant peek-a-boo where they only take action if they see something directly. It’s a response to and an investigation of a reported ongoing crime.

“Reported” is a key word here. There was no crime, of course, but the officers didn’t know that. What they knew is that they didn’t know if there was a crime. There was either about to be the capture of a burglar, or the terrifying of a kid. Competent police would balance both these possibilities, doing their best to keep a burglar from escaping while ALSO doing their best not to terrify and humiliate a guy in his own home.

These police, based on their own testimony, did the former but not the latter.

A lot of folks here seem to be ignoring the importance of not terrifying this kid, indeed focusing instead on how he got what was coming to him when police burst into his house with guns drawn and frisked him and challenged his right to be in his house. There’s almost certainly an element of racism involved there.

[Morgenstern]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

…

This is happening in the wake of Ferguson. Imagine you’re a black dude who has a traumatic history, and you’ve been paying attention to Ferguson, and this might happen to you. You’d seriously hope the cops would follow the protocol they followed here?

If that was the case, I sure as hell wouldn’t tell the cops I was going to kick their asses and refuse to sit down and cooperate.

[Terr]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

A lot of folks here seem to be ignoring the importance of not terrifying this kid, indeed focusing instead on how he got what was coming to him when police burst into his house with guns drawn and frisked him and challenged his right to be in his house. There’s almost certainly an element of racism involved there.

Yeah, cuz police never burst into houses with guns drawn and frisk non-blacks. Including by mistake. Right?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Terr

Yeah, cuz police never burst into houses with guns drawn and frisk non-blacks. Including by mistake. Right?

Sure, show me the last time police burst into a house with guns drawn and frisked a white guy who was doing nothing more harmful than coming home.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Morgenstern

If that was the case, I sure as hell wouldn’t tell the cops I was going to kick their asses and refuse to sit down and cooperate.

The worst reports about his language come from the officer that sprayed him. One of the other officers includes one “I will beat your ass” line, and the other officer on the scene includes no report about such language. Everyone saw Curry sit down; the only claim about his getting up etc. comes from teh officer that stayed downstairs and was alone with him when he sprayed him.

All that said, if you or I had cops run into our homes with guns drawn, maybe we’d react better. Plenty of Tea Partiers would act a helluva lot worse. Curry was the victim here of what amounted to a home invasion by gun-wielding thugs. Sure, the gun-wielding thugs thought they were serving, protecting, but the effect of their action was to torment and humiliate an innocent guy: they failed even worse than Cheesesteak.

[Bouncer]

@Eonwe

You’re missing the point that those who disagree with you here do not think it’s reasonable for the foster child who lives in that house to have been identified as a suspected criminal. For fuck’s sake.

Not speaking for anyone else, but for me, it’s reasonable once they have legitimately entered the residence (and they have, under United States law) to conduct a safety search and to establish anyone present in the residence has either a right or permission to be there and that the crime for which they were summoned is not being committed. It doesn’t mean they can search sock drawers for bags of dope. It does mean they can do a safety sweep and they can ask for ID from any occupants.

But let’s change it up a second:

If this individual had been, say, Asian (where the known family is white):
A) Do you think the officers would have been justified in asking for ID.
B) Continuing to question/investigate when the addresses didn’t match.
C) Continuing to question/investigate when the family photos didn’t include the individual.

To me, the answer is yes in all three cases. They are justified based on the witness statement. It’s not race specific, it’s because he is an unknown person in a dwelling where a 911 caller has said there is an ongoing burglary.

“It is reasonable for officers, responding to a request for police assistance and with probable cause to believe that an open, unsecured dwelling has been recently burglarized, to immediately enter the dwelling without a warrant for the limited purposes of investigating the crime, rendering aid to any possible victims of the felony, protecting the occupant’s property, and searching for remaining suspects. Cf. United States v. Langley, 466 F.2d 27 (6th Cir.1972); State v. Proctor, 12 Wn.App. 274, 529 P.2d 472 (1974).” State v. Campbell, 15 Wn.App. 98, 547 P.2d 295 (1976)."

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Sure, show me the last time police burst into a house with guns drawn and frisked a white guy who was doing nothing more harmful than coming home.

Here’s one where they shot the resident

Here’s one where they tase the resident.

[Bouncer]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

“Reported” is a key word here. There was no crime, of course, but the officers didn’t know that. What they knew is that they didn’t know if there was a crime.

Yes, but the WAY THEY FIND OUT is to go inside… AND FIND OUT! :smack:

There was either about to be the capture of a burglar, or the terrifying of a kid. Competent police would balance both these possibilities, doing their best to keep a burglar from escaping while ALSO doing their best not to terrify and humiliate a guy in his own home. These police, based on their own testimony, did the former but not the latter.

Once the exigent entry reason exists, they have a right (even an obligation) to conduct the search and safety sweep. During this they might interrupt someone masturbating to Justin Bieber songs. While I’m sure no one wants to interrupt your “quality time”, the obligation to protect people and property trumps your embarrassment. Life ain’t perfect and neither are police. But not being perfect doesn’t mean they aren’t competent.

A lot of folks here seem to be ignoring the importance of not terrifying this kid, indeed focusing instead on how he got what was coming to him when police burst into his house with guns drawn and frisked him and challenged his right to be in his house. There’s almost certainly an element of racism involved there.

That’s because he’s not a “kid”. He’s an 18 year old, 5’8" 200lb man. He’s old enough to vote, drive a car, join the military (and legally kill in the name of his country). Stop playing him off as a 13 year old in high tops. He’s a man legally and physically.

I’ve seen no one (except you) argue that “he got what was coming to him” by being detained during an exigent entry search of the house.

You really believe the police do these searches for fun knowing everyone in every residence, and what their status to be in that residence is, before they go bursting into random houses “with guns drawn”. You really do apparently believe that.

Wow.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bouncer

Once the exigent entry reason exists, they have a right (even an obligation) to conduct the search and safety sweep. During this they might interrupt someone masturbating to Justin Bieber songs. While I’m sure no one wants to interrupt your “quality time”, the obligation to protect people and property trumps your embarrassment. Life ain’t perfect and neither are police. But not being perfect doesn’t mean they aren’t competent.

Leave your masturbatory fantasies out of it, if you don’t mind. The major problem with their actions (setting aside giving credence to a mighty weak report of burglary) is not that they swept the house, but that they failed to de-escalate when they saw this guy.

You really believe the police do these searches for fun knowing everyone in every residence, and what their status to be in that residence is, before they go bursting into random houses “with guns drawn”. You really do apparently believe that.

You goddamned moron, if I really believed that, I would have said that.

@Bricker

Here’s one where they shot the resident

Here’s one where they tase the resident.

So, when I ask for recent examples of police doing something similar to white guys, you give an example that’s five years old in which there really was a violent crime going on, in which the police had every reason to shoot someone, and they made a mistake about whom to shoot; and a recent example in which the police tased a Latino man in his own house. Gotcha.