Currie (and his mother) claim he “snapped” and was pepper sprayed when he was questioned about the fact that there were no pictures of him there. Stancil was upstairs when Currie was pepper sprayed.
Notice also that Stancil mentions specifically that he saw no pictures of Currie in the living room. Therefore it is likely that Stancil heard the “how come no pictures of you if you live here?” question, but did not report it because he was talking about what he did - going upstairs to secure the area after making sure that Taylor had this visibly upset suspect under control. Then, while Stancil was upstairs, Currie who began as upset, became progressively more upset as his ID had the wrong address and there was no evidence that he really did live there. So he built up a ranting head of steam and (as he reported to his mother) “snapped” and went from upset to enraged and assaultive when he was ordered and failed to stop cursing and threatening the officers and they tried to cuff him.
It wasn’t because he was angry.
It was for the following reasons.
being verbally abusive.
threatening to do bodily harm to the officer
refusing to sit and aid with the investigation
refusing to allow the officer to cuff him in response to 1, 2 and 3.
That’s why he got pepper sprayed. That was a reasonable amount of force employed to make Currie less of a threat and compliant with the demands of the officer(s). Break any link in that chain and there’s no pepper spraying.
Who questioned him about the pictures, on what page of the report, and where were they? I’m not seeing that in the report, and certainly not the way you’re proposing.
I appreciate your respectiful analysis of this issue, Bricker. I am reading what you’re reading, just so you know. I just disagree that we’re comparing like things. In fact I know we aren’t comparing like things.
I just read Langley and don’t know what relevance it has in this discussion, since it applies to a warranted search and seizure. :sigh: But I’ll dissect it anyway. In this case, officers could point to details that elevated reasonable suspicion to probable cause. You correctly pointed out the presence a moving truck outside, but neglected to mention the cops had other evidence such as several nonresponsive knocks at the door and spotting a figure dart through the house suspiciously after peering through a window. Using this info, plus a whole bunch of other circumstantial evidence, they obtained a search warrant to enter the premises.
InCarroll v Maryland, again we’re talking about two different scenarios. There was objective evidence of a break in (missing window pane that the landlady corroborated as being amiss) and prior knowledge (from the landlady) that it was presently unoccupied. In addition, the cop identified himself before entering the property.
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.
I understand that. I’m sure officers have been dishonest in the past. But I’m willing to bet the likelihood of a suspect to be dishonest is far greater.
A suspect that was not arrested? It’s this blind acceptance that is part of the problem. It’s possible that these cops are not lying. But the power and ‘honesty-perception’ disparity is so vast in such circumstances that the cops can do anything they want, as long as they get their story straight afterwards. That’s why cameras are so important if there’s to be any hope of repairing trust.
The neighbor confirmed that he was the one reporting a possible burglary, and that there had been other burglaries and auto thefts recently. The mom confirmed that Currie snapped, which refers to a sudden escalation of rage to a higher and uncontrolled level. So in this context, yes, it is. Lt. Gratham was not on the scene when Currie was pepper sprayed but reported threats made by Currie while becing decomtaminated by EMS.
This is really not all that complicated. A neighbor saw Currie going into a house. The neighbor was concerned about local crimes, and thought he knew everyone who lived there. Currie didn’t match with anyone who was known to live there. I suspect Currie didn’t really stay there much, at least he hadn’t since he became a legal adult and left foster care. But they left the door open (poor fools, in that neighborhood with its car thefts and burglaries) since he didn’t stay there enough to make it worthwhile to give him a key.
So Currie comes back to crash for a few nights and raid the refrigerator, the neighbor seems a stranger entering a house when the known residents aren’t home. The cops arrive to investigate what may well be a burglary in progress, and find this guy there. He can’t account for himself, his ID doesn’t back him up, there is no evidence that he really lives there, and he becomes progressively more upset the guiltier he looks.
This is a kid who still thinks of himself as a child, and his foster mom still refers to him as her little baby - I’m guessing he probably isn’t well-known either for his calm maturity or icy self-control.
But he’s 18 and he’s been in foster care most of his life - he tries to replace with tantrums what a reasonable adult would achieve by saying “my mom is picking up her kids - call her on her cell”. Unfortunately his choice is to try to intimidate the cops with what a tough guy he is - not a wise decision. So after being screamed at for a bit by this wannabe they decide “fuck this noise” and cuff him. He resists, and they squirt him with a little taco sauce to show him who’s his daddy, cuff him, and ring for the medics. And it turns out he does live there, off and on, so they release him to the custody of his mommy.
And we get threads where idiots demand to know why the cops didn’t get a writ from the Supreme fucking Court and say “Captain May I” before they investigated a possible crime in progress.
No, that’s not what it necessarily means in this context. Saying “he snapped” is not saying “he threatened and assaulted them”. It could mean he shouted at them – it could mean he tried to flee – it could mean he shut down and didn’t say a word. All those things are consistent with someone who “snapped”.
OK, both of those are fair points. But as I mentioned, I didn’t quote Carroll so much for its facts as for the impressive list of court decisions that ALSO agreed that a burglary report created exigency for warrantless entry.
One of those cases answers your objections, I think: Reardon v. Wroan, 811 F. 2d 1025 (7th Cir 1987). In this case, three officers received a radio report of a burglary in progress at a fraternity home. They arrived at the home and found no signs of forced entry. The rear door was ajar and the home was dark. They did not knock or announce themselves, but entered with guns drawn and encountered two of the home’s legitimate residents, who they held at gunpoint, handcuffed, and detained. When their ID’s matched the address of the home they were released.
The students who had been sued the police officers for violation of their constitutional rights: they claimed police entered the home in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
The court, in finding that the defendant police officers had exigent circumstances, said:
In Reardon the police did not announce themselves, either. But the court still found, as a matter of law, that the reported burglary gave them exigency to effect a warrantless entry.
I thought you were asking
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Admittedly it’s been several days since I read the report, but I don’t remember anywhere in there where they asked him these questions.
[/QUOTE]
where “these questions” are
[QUOTE=Morgenstern]
They asked him who he was and why he was there.
[/QUOTE]
And then quoted the cops asking him who he was and if he lived there, why did his ID not match.
Which sounds like a pretty close match to “who are you and why are you here?”
I am not sure I understand what you mean by “where were they”. If you mean the pictures, there weren’t any pictures of Currie in the house - that’s the point. The only reference to pictures without Currie is from Stancil, as I said. He says he was in the living room when he noticed that Currie was not in the pictures. Then Stancil went upstairs, and heard Currie being sprayed from up there. There is no mention of questions about Currie in pictures in the report, other than Stancil’s one line.
Which implies either that Currie was asked about the pictures shortly after he was asked why his ID didn’t match, or shortly before he snapped and was sprayed, after Stancil went upstairs. But why does it matter? What seems like a reasonable scenario is that Currie began his not-very-slow burn when they first came into the house and challenged his presence, and built as his ID failed to clear him. And the cops didn’t mention questioning him about the pictures because it was just another detail that they noticed, and mentioning it to Currie didn’t make him any madder than he had started getting the instant they came in the door.
They said “threatened and assaulted”. If all he did was shout, then that is not consistent (a shout might constitute a threat, depending on the words, but a shout doesn’t constitute an assault).
You need to choose what is consistent with what Currie said about himself - he did not say he fled, he did not say that he shut down and didn’t say a word. He said he became angry, which agrees with the testimony of the cops on the scene and those who arrived later. and what he (apparently) reported to his mother. That he lost control of himself and started screaming. And all the cops, including those who arrived shortly afterward, agree that he was threatening and out of control, and one reports him making a threat while being treated by EMS. So “snapped” in this context does, in fact, mean escalated emotion to a sudden and uncontrolled level.
In my state, California, Assault and Battery are two different sections of the penal code, both are illegal.
Example. Two guys get in a fight over a parking spot, one guy swings and misses the other by a mile. This is an assault. Had he hit him, it would have been a battery.
So Currie’s threats to kick the officers ass coupled with his ability to do so,might well be an assault. Currie’s striking the officers arm in anger is a battery.
This does not contradict anything I’ve said – Currie does not admit to such battery, and being angry or even having “snapped” is not necessarily consistent with such threats and battery.