NC: Cops pepper spray black foster son of white family

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

It was still plausible. Facts are always plausible.

And how did they know it was a fact?

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

And how did they know it was a fact?

Regards,
Shodan

They didn’t. I’m criticizing your assertion that Currie’s claim wasn’t plausible. It was.

[Shodan]

@you_with_the_face

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.

Here is his/her interpretation of Reardon as expressed in response to a cop-defender:

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.

Did you happen to read your own cite?

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).

Please recall that this is what happened - Currie’s ID failed to show that he lived there.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

They didn’t. I’m criticizing your assertion that Currie’s claim wasn’t plausible. It was.

You were arguing that the police should have believed him because it was a fact that he lived there, and facts are plausible. Since they did not know that it was a fact, they did not know that it was plausible.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

You were arguing that the police should have believed him because it was a fact that he lived there, and facts are plausible. Since they did not know that it was a fact, they did not know that it was plausible.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word “plausible”. Plausible doesn’t mean you have to accept it without additional evidence. For example – my lunch is missing from the fridge at work… it’s plausible that I forgot to put it there. It’s also plausible that someone took it. It’s not plausible that it’s gone because it was stolen by aliens.

Plausible just means it’s believeable and not beyond the realm of possibility – even if further confirmation may be required.

[you_with_the_face]

@Shodan

Please recall that this is what happened - Currie’s ID failed to show that he lived there.

As I said, this board’s capacity for critical thought is not what it is chalked up to be.

The cops entered his home before they even asked him for his ID, genius.

[Cheesesteak]

From Anon

If someone shows up and claims to be the homeowner, you are not going to have probable cause until … or else does something inconsistent with being the homeowner (like, say, failing to id).

What does failing to ID mean? Conceptually, confirming the claim of being the homeowner by using your ID would imply that the ID has the correct address on it.

Someone comes to the door, claims to be the homeowner and shows an ID with the wrong address on it, how does that eliminate probable cause?

Yes, it’s plausible that he’s the homeowner, it’s also plausible that he’s not, and is just buying time to run away.

[you_with_the_face]

@Cheesesteak

From Anon What does failing to ID mean? Conceptually, confirming the claim of being the homeowner by using your ID would imply that the ID has the correct address on it.

Someone comes to the door, claims to be the homeowner and shows an ID with the wrong address on it, how does that eliminate probable cause?.

If the address is wrong, that still wouldn’t automatically give probable cause. The person would need to provide an explanation for this discrepancy. If asked about it, Currie could have said “we just moved here a few months ago and I haven’t had the chance to update my ID.” That is a plausible explanation. In the absence of any info to contradict this alibi, the cops could not have barged in at that point.

But this neglects the elephant in the room. Why would they even need to enter the home in the first place? If Currie met them at the door and started acting suspicious, the proper thing would be to draw Currie outside and deal with him out there. Not engage him indoors, where they could possibly be ambushed by unseen accomplices or risk violating his 4th amendment rights.

These two considerations should be on the forefront of anyone calling themselves a cop. It was perfectly possible for them to investigate burglary without ever crossing the threshold.

[you_with_the_face]

@Cheesesteak

From Anon What does failing to ID mean? Conceptually, confirming the claim of being the homeowner by using your ID would imply that the ID has the correct address on it.

I forgot to add, even if the address was wrong, they could still run a background search on his name to look for outstanding warrants or relevant priors. This history could factor into probable cause as well.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
For the 100th time, cops must have probable cause and exigent circumstances for warrantless entry.
[/QUOTE]

No they don’t.

To fall within the emergency exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement, the State needed to show that: (1) police had reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency at hand and that there was an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property; (2) the search was not primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there was some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the place or area to be searched. State v. Mountford, 171 Vt. 487, 490 (2000).

The police need “some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause”, to associate the emergency with that area. As soon as they have that, the search becomes proper.

So -
[ol][li]The police did have reasonable grounds to believe that there was immediate need for their assistance for the protection of property[/li][li]The search was motivated by intent to investigate and determine if a crime was being committed[/li][li]The neighbor’s report associated the the emergency with that specific house.[/ol]So their entry was proper. Then Currie asserted himself to be the homeowner (or at least a resident). His failure of ID meant that the need for probable cause was not created. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[you_with_the_face]

@Shodan

The police need “some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause”, to associate the emergency with that area. As soon as they have that, the search becomes proper.

You are acting rather desperate by citing this case, Shodan. Perhaps you should leave this fight up to Bricker.

From State of Vermont v. Matthew D. Reardon

In August 2002, at approximately 12:30 p.m., police and emergency medical workers were dispatched to a motel in Colchester. A motel desk clerk had complained that three guests would not wake up despite repeated calls to their room, banging on the door, **and her entry into their room. ** The responding officer followed the clerk to the room, and ** twice knocked loudly on the door, and announced himself as a police officer. After receiving no response, the officer, who was concerned that the room’ s occupants might be dead or injured, entered the room. **

{snip}

[While in the room, the officer observed evidence of drug use in plain view, including a A bong,@ dried marijuana stems, empty plastic bags…

{snip}

The officer asked the men if they had more drugs or drug paraphernalia on them or in their backpacks. The men identified their respective backpacks, but refused to allow the officer to search them. The officer seized the backpacks pending his application for a search warrant. ** After the men checked out of the room, the officer discovered thirty grams of cocaine, 119 ecstacy pills, $4000 in cash, and a pistol in the room’ s safe. Shortly thereafter, defendant and the two other men were arrested. After obtaining a warrant to search defendant’ s backpack**, the officer found a bag with nineteen identical or similar mottled-colored pills, which the officer suspected were ecstacy. After waiving his Miranda rights, defendant admitted to the officer that the pills were ecstacy.

There is so much probable cause in this case it would kill a buffalo. The fact that the motel clerk reported seeing the men nonresponsive and incapacitated after entering the room on her own means the cops had probable cause to suspect a crime with emergency implications.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

If the address is wrong, that still wouldn’t automatically give probable cause. The person would need to provide an explanation for this discrepancy. If asked about it, Currie could have said “we just moved here a few months ago and I haven’t had the chance to update my ID.” That is a plausible explanation. In the absence of any info to contradict this alibi, the cops could not have barged in at that point.

I’m sorry, but this is not a correct statement of probable cause.

Probable cause does NOT require elimination of all other plausible, innocent explanations. It merely requires that all the facts of which the officer is aware together create a situation in which a reasonably prudent officer would believe that there’s a probability that a crime is afoot. Not “more probable than not,” by the way. Probable cause is a low standard.

But this neglects the elephant in the room. Why would they even need to enter the home in the first place? If Currie met them at the door and started acting suspicious, the proper thing would be to draw Currie outside and deal with him out there. Not engage him indoors, where they could possibly be ambushed by unseen accomplices or risk violating his 4th amendment rights.

It’s true – because Fourth Amendment rights are strongest inside the home, the police are in much better strategic chape if they draw a suspect outside. Confronting him inside is not the best practice.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

But why would you bother to do this when my issue was clearly stated in the post you responded to. Here is it again:

My mistake. I thought I saw some discussion from you above on the issue of exigency.

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.

OK.

As I understand your objections, a key element here is the lack of any knocking? We’ve discussed cases with a similar fact pattern as Currie’s (door ajar plus report of burglary) and I can certainly post cases that also contain “door ajar” without even a report of burglary. But I gather you’re looking for: door ajar, report of burglary, police didn’t knock before entering. Yes?

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

Probable cause does NOT require elimination of all other plausible, innocent explanations. It merely requires that all the facts of which the officer is aware together create a situation in which a reasonably prudent officer would believe that there’s a probability that a crime is afoot. Not “more probable than not,” by the way. Probable cause is a low standard.

Maybe if we’re dealing with a cop who is itching to make an arrest would act on a ID that doesn’t bear the correct address. But that still wouldn’t given them PC to enter the home if the suspect was outside.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Shodan

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).

Again, they cuffed him because he was threatening them, to prevent him from carrying out his threats and thus making defense necessary.

And my point is, de-escalation in this scenario, if it worked, would have aided their ability to investigate the situation, and prevented them from needing to cuff their suspect, preventing the possibility that they, or he, could’ve been injured.

There is, so far as I can see, no aspect of Currie being cuffed and pepper sprayed that improved the situation for any person present, as compared to the situation prior to the police feeling the need to do so. If that situation could have been avoided by the police here de-escalating the situation, everyone would have come out of this better.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

Maybe if we’re dealing with a cop who is itching to make an arrest would act on a ID that doesn’t bear the correct address. But that still wouldn’t given them PC to enter the home if the suspect was outside.

A report of a burglary in progress would, because even if one suspect is outside, that doesn’t rule out additional suspects still in the home.

[Shodan]

@Revenant_Threshold

There is, so far as I can see, no aspect of Currie being cuffed and pepper sprayed that improved the situation for any person present, as compared to the situation prior to the police feeling the need to do so.

Before he was cuffed, he had the capacity to carry out his threats of violence against the police. Afterwards, he didn’t. I see that as an improvement in the situation.

Regards,
Shodan

[Morgenstern]

@Revenant_Threshold

And my point is, de-escalation in this scenario, if it worked, would have aided their ability to investigate the situation, and prevented them from needing to cuff their suspect, preventing the possibility that they, or he, could’ve been injured.

…

De-escalation would have been wonderful The problem I’m having is determining what is so friggen difficult or humiliating about complying with a police order to *sit down and calm down *. Good Og, that seems so simple in the scheme of things and it would have gone so far in preventing this mess.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

As I understand your objections, a key element here is the lack of any knocking? We’ve discussed cases with a similar fact pattern as Currie’s (door ajar plus report of burglary) and I can certainly post cases that also contain “door ajar” without even a report of burglary. But I gather you’re looking for: door ajar, report of burglary, police didn’t knock before entering. Yes?

I believe the cops are not authorized to conduct a warrantless entry in the absence of the following:

• Objective facts indicative of a break-in and burglary (broken windows, damaged doors, triggered alarm, barking dog, or household possessions strewn about suspiciously…)

AND/OR

• A report from a witness saying they actually saw a break-in or a person engaged in suspicious burglar-type behavior–like peeking through windows, trying the doors, squeezing themselves through an open window on the second floor, etc.

AND

• An attempt by the cops to summon the lawful occupants to the door first (by knocking and announcing themselves)

OR

• An attempt of the cops to at least rule out the presence of lawful occupants by checking with a reliable authority (like the landlady in Carroll whose own residence was co-located)

Here is what we have in Currie’s case:

• No objective facts that imply a break-in (the cops claim the side door was slightly ajar, but that alone doesn’t suggest forced entry)

• A report from a neighbor that an person unknown to them entered a house. No claim of B&E or suspicious activity.

• No attempt by the cops to summon lawful occupants–no knock-and-announce

• No interview with the witness to clarify what they saw and their credibility with regards to recognizing who does and does not belong in that household.

In addition, we have evidence the cops did not employ the least intrusive measures to investigate burglary:

• The police report failed to note any attempt to do a walk-around of the premises or check all the doors, or even look through the windows to see if they saw anything that would help them assess probable cause. While this isn’t damning by itself, it shows due diligence was sacrificed in their haste to use the plan of attack most likely to encroach upon Currie’s constitutional rights. In effect, this gross disregard for his right to privacy shows that the cops did not even consider the possibility that Currie was innocent.

It is quite possible that if the 3 officers had simply walked around the premises before barging in, Currie would have seen or heard them and then made himself known in a way that dispelled presumption he was a thief. Maybe if they’d bothered to peek through a window, they would him seen him sitting in the living room reading Chaucer or playing videogames like a typical teenager. An observation that would totally destroy any reasonable suspicion for burglary, let alone probable cause.

So Bricker here is what I’m asking to prove: that cops acting on similar levels of evidence (nonspecific 911 call and an slightly ajar door) were lawfully allowed to conduct a warrantless entry without first attempting to exclude the presence of lawful occupants.

[Shodan]

So much bullshit…

@you_with_the_face

I believe the cops are not authorized to conduct a warrantless entry in the absence of the following:…;

AND

• An attempt by the cops to summon the lawful occupants to the door first (by knocking and announcing themselves)

OR

• An attempt of the cops to at least rule out the presence of lawful occupants by checking with a reliable authority (like the landlady in Carroll whose own residence was co-located)

No, this is not the case.

Here is what we have in Currie’s case:

• No objective facts that imply a break-in (the cops claim the side door was slightly ajar, but that alone doesn’t suggest forced entry)

• A report from a neighbor that an person unknown to them entered a house. No claim of B&E or suspicious activity.

False. The neighbor did, in fact, report suspicious activity, and even explained why he thought it suspicious. As previously cited, breaking a door or lock is not necessary to establish the crime of burglary in most jurisdictions.

• No attempt by the cops to summon lawful occupants–no knock-and-announce

• No interview with the witness to clarify what they saw and their credibility with regards to recognizing who does and does not belong in that household.

Again - not necessary.

In addition, we have evidence the cops did not employ the least intrusive measures to investigate burglary:

• The police report failed to note any attempt to do a walk-around of the premises or check all the doors, or even look through the windows to see if they saw anything that would help them assess probable cause.

They don’t need probable cause. Or perhaps more precisely, they need something approximating probable cause only to establish a connection between the reported emergency (possible burglary in progress) and the location. Which they had - the neighbor’s report mentioned the specific house.

So you are wrong both on the law and the facts. Time for you to pound on the table.

Regards,
Shodan