Let me clarify. If you had asked me what my response would be the night before I went to bed, I would have not thought it would have been to respond with attacking. And having reflected on it the following day, I think I should have ran to the bedroom door and latched it shut. Not that it would have provided much protection, but if it had been a burglar he could have taken what he wanted and no one would have gotten hurt. Frankly, we don’t own anything valuable enough to be worth risking anyone (even the burglar’s) life.
But I did not have the luxury to contemplate my options. I awoke to a perceived threat to the safety of my unborn child. That was my only thought before charging forward and tripping. While on the floor I had more time to contemplate my options.
I’m not making any claim that I reacted in the “right” way (whatever that might be).
Also, we’ve had a bad heat wave the past few days, and had load window air conditioners going in the living room and bedroom. They may have been announcing themselves every minute or so, and it might have been them saying something that actually woke me up. But my brain didn’t kick in in time to hear what they said. It kicked in in time to see the light and hear something, not sure what.
As the naked guy in this story. I honestly don’t know if they announced their presence frequently, just once, or what. It was loud with ACs going, and I sleep heavily. Maggie heard something a few minutes before, but we live 10 feet from the next house and often over hear voices from the neighbors hot tub and try to just sleep through them talking.
Here’s a question. Does anyone know why the police don’t employ bullhorns or sirens or other such devices in this sort of situation? One would think that a police car with wailing sirens, flashing lights, and a classic “This is the police!” bullhorn address from the front lawn would be sufficient to not only awaken a homeowner, but also immediately alert them to the nature of the situation.
And even if they are sleep addled, the fact that the officers are not immediately inside the residence removes the opportunity for the situation to escalate due purely to confusion on the part of the inhabitants. You might reflexively grab your gun or run into the front of the house, but without a stranger in dark clothes pointing a flashlight at you, and with the unmistakeable sounds and lights of a police cruiser outside, you’d quickly piece together what was going on without having the chance to even attempt to attack anyone.
I would have appreciated that approach. Or have an officer at both doors and ring the door bell or pound on the door for 10 minutes waiting for a response, then maybe come in. I’m not sure I would have heard it, but i probably would have. We only have a front door and back door, so an officer at both would have kept a burglar in.
My point exactly. One perhaps can’t say that the police did nothing to advertize their presence, but they clearly didn’t do enough.
And even if someone wanted to play devil’s advocate and argue that advertizing their presence would allow the thief to escape justice… well, isn’t that preferable? I’d rather have a thief scared away, even while in possession of valuables, than to wake up to a confusing situation where I felt threatened and compelled to defend myself, and as a consequence either myself or others were put into very real danger of lethal violence.
No mattashburn is correct in his assessment, the basis for probable cause, or reasonable suspicion for that matter, must be based on more then an unparticularized suspicion or a mere hunch that a crime is being or has been committed. The officer must be able to clearly articulate and point to specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that a specific person was the one responsible.
As far as I am concerned the entry into the home was a fourth amendment violation. That being said the officer’s could perhaps defend their actions by stating they were acting under an exigent circumstance. Though I feel this is not particularly strong enough to over come the fact that the officer’s intruded upon the seclusion of the home.
There have been a couple recent cases (TX, FL) where the cops have shot homeowners while they were standing inside their garage. One guy was killed, another elderly homeowner was wounded.
The media rep Maggie talked to said that the cumulative circumstances of the open pedestrian door on the garage, the open back door, unlocked screen door and a rash of burglaries with people kicking in back doors was what likely led to probable cause. I can see where they are coming from on that. I’m not thrilled that they entered our home, but I understand they were trying to protect us and our neighbors. I would think that the fact there was no damage on either of the doors or door frames indicating a kicked in door should have mitigated the probable cause. But as someone who ran at two armed men with at very least a heavy flashlight that could have bashed in my face while completely naked, groggy, and unarmed, I personally don’t feel like I’m in a place to question people’s decisions that night.
Well it DOES sound like the spokesperson may have confused “probable cause” with “reasonable suspicion” PC is what you need for a warrant or arrest, but RS is sufficient to detain and question somebody. Certainly if they went on a fishing expedition for drugs, any evidence that was in a container smaller than a person would probably have been thrown out by a court.
The protection from unlawful police intrusion into ones home sits at the very core of our fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. The facts as provided in this article, indicate to me that the officer’s had a reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime may be afoot. This would have allowed them to temporarily detain any person found within the area that they reasonably believe may be involved in said crime, they then could briefly question the person and perhaps perform a pat down search if the officer’s felt the individual was armed and dangerous. See Terry v. Ohio. The actual entry into a home, however, requires a search warrant, unless an exigent circumstance exists (which in this instance, they would have pretty much have had to see someone carry stuff out of the house). As way of example on how protected the home is, look to the recent supreme court decision of Florida v. Jardines, where the court found a fourth amendment violation just for bring a drug dog onto a persons front porch.
True, but the exclusionary rule is but one among many other remedies for a fourth amendment violation. (which of course makes sense because otherwise the only people that would be protected under the fourth amendment would be those engaged in criminal activity).
This wording illustrates something about our criminal justice system that seems horribly broken to me. You conflate “on trial” (implied by use of exclusionary rule on evidence) with “engaged in criminal activity”. People who are innocent have to plead guilty to low charges rather than make their case at trial, because everyone involved in a trial does the same thing–including the jury.
If they had found somebody disconnecting the plasma screen when they entered the house, I’d hate to be the defense lawyer trying to argue that this fact was covered by the exclusionary rule and that the burgler should therefore go free.
I chose the phrase “engaged in criminal activity” instead of “on trial” because there are instances where charges will not be brought because of a clear fourth amendment violation that would prevent the case from ever even reaching plea negation phase let alone trial. Ultimately, though I was simply attempting to point out that the fourth amendment is there to protect everyone and there are remedies for its violation beyond the exclusionary rule.
Though I do agree there are serious issues with the pervasiveness of plea bargaining and the effect that being charged with a crime has on the perception that a person has committed a crime.
