The finding of fact states that she turned and ran. It’s conjecture, but I have a hard time believing that is accurate and here is why:
She was on the steps near her front door. Running means having both feet simultaneously off the ground. That would take a bit of time when doing it up steps. Maybe she made a hasty exit and the officers embellished their description saying that she actually ran. Her son was with her outside. I find it unlikely that she would turn and run and leave her son outside with officers. She testified that walked into the house and told officers she was going to get her husband. If that is true, I think the officer’s justification of the entry falls apart.
I agree that the intentions of the officers are important, and it doesn’t appear that the officers were doing anything nefarious in intent. The bigger concern is the precedent it sets. After this ruling, it seems to make warrant-less searches easier to justify which I think is a bad thing.
But that’s kind of beside the point. The officers were there to investigate the threat of a school shooting. Instead of denying to speak to the police, they just ignored them. Then they finally came out to talk, and instead of just ending the interview in a normal fashion, she again ignores the officer and heads inside—let’s say quickly, instead of “running.” I find it very hard to fault an officer for thinking there’s some danger here. If we say officers can throw the constitution out when they feel there’s some imminent threat, then this situation doesn’t seem to me to be so far outside such reasonableness, and there are about 1000 ways the mother could have handled the police without submitting to an interview and without arising their fears. Just answering the knock and flatly denying an interview—done.
I don’t like the executive branch in general and am especially wary of the police but this is the way things are and even with my reservations I think it is fairly rare for a straightforward denial of an interview to be ignored by police. They have too much power, that’s one thing, but I don’t think they just endlessly abuse their position and then turn around and lie about it later. If he felt worried in the situation, and it was roughly as described, well, I can see why he might be worried about the safety of people on the scene. Officers are just as innocent until proven guilty as their suspects, to me.
If you want to reach your own conclusions about the facts in the case without actually hearing the witness testimony in their own words and the cross examinations, have at it. I don’t know enough, outside of the facts contained in the findings of fact and the courts opinion, to argue.
It is such a fact specific situation where no new law is made or announced, I think its value as precedent is next to nil.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=427&invol=38
Of course the case at hand does not cite too many authorities, historical jurisprudence plays a role here. You can see the mere retreat from a public place does not void a warrantless arrest when the police follow her into the home.
Reasoning of similar import exists here. When asked if the house has any weapons in it, and a retreat from a public place into the house happens after that specific question, should this justify a warrantless entry?
I am more inclined to say yes than no.
The “specific facts” are Constitutionally important when deciding a case, believe me, many cases are decided on a “case by case” basis, even though there may be similar precedent before it.
Indiana ruled last year even when police enter a home without a warrant, and it is determined to be unjustifed, if the person tried to stop them when they enter, they can be charged with a crime, obstruction or such.
Does the reasonability of the search rely on the fact that she didn’t respond verbally to the question? If she said, “I’m done answering your questions” then turned and ran in, is the search now unreasonable since she made it clear that her retreat was to end the interrigation?
The reasonableness of the search doesn’t come down to one particular fact, but rather the totality of the circumstances. That said, the findings of fact that the appellate court relied upon included: “the fact that she refused to tell them whether there were guns in the house; and finally, the fact that she ran back into the house while being questioned.” If she had said “I’m done” and gone in, it might have pushed the scales a bit toward the unreasonableness, but there’s no real way to be sure because there were a bunch of factors being considered by the police and the court.
I’ll note that at the hearings, she testified that she told the officers that she was going into the house to get her husband, but the court that heard the case rejected that testimony and found that she “immediately turned around and ran into the house” after being asked about guns in the house.