Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Police officers routinely enter a house whne answering a call for domestic abuse. The idea of asking the individuals to step outside is ridiculous, because one or both parties can and could refuse, if that is the case, then the police would be powerless to do anything regarding the situation. |
A police officer entering a house when answering for domestic abuse typically revolves around exigent circumstances, and the laws vary from state to state. Some states have tougher laws and give police more power than others. Some states have laws governing circumstances where both parties deny abuse is taking place, and give police power to make their own determination regarding the crime.
And what the heck is entering the house going to do for the police? Either they can act on the issue of abuse, or they can't. Entering the house isn't going to really affect that. The evidence of abuse is the victim herself/himself. The victim's testimony to the abuse.
Evidence of abuse is not going to be found in a dresser drawer...
I see nothing ridiculous about asking them to step outside. If the victim wants to step outside, then the victim does. If the assailant does not wish to, then he doesn't. If the victim refuses to, then the victim has refused. The "stepping outside" is more of an issue of separating the two so statements can be made without intimidation of the other... Not an issue of allowing search of the house.
The assailant can't claim "sanctuary" in the house if he is going to be arrested, and he doesn't want to come outside.
I see a hypothetical idea that the police must enter the unit for domestic violence as more ridiculous, unless one of the parties is not present and presumed inside. And that would be an issue of exigent circumstances...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Think about that.....if the police arrive and one party asks them to come, and and the second party says no what are the police to do???? |
The issue is ENTERING the house.
If one party asks them to come to the residence, and the other asks that they don't, there is no issue. The other party has no right to insist that the police not show up on his front door-step.
If one party asks them to come to the residence, they show up. That party can then step outside and talk to the police. If the police are persuaded that domestic abuse is taking place, then can arrest the party involved. If they are going to arrest the party involved, his "refusal" to let them in is irrelevant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski While I understand the reasoning behind the decision, it still creates a condition that could hamper further police investigations. If a call of domestic abuse is made, and the officers see no signs of abuse and the wife wishes to have them come in and the husband says no, the police would then have to turn around and leave. If that women is later injured or killed by the husband and the family members sue the police, the police would probably lose, and it will be the city and taxpayers paying that award and not the members of the Supreme Court. |
I see no reason why the law-suit should be successful. The police came, and if there are no signs of domestic abuse, there are no signs.
How will entering the house suddenly give them a sign of domestic abuse? The evidence of domestic abuse would be the wife's testimony and/or bruises to the wife's body. How would a person get evidence of domestic abuse inside a home that is not readily available on the outside?
If the police come, and the WIFE MAKES THE CHOICE to stay, I don't see how anybody could sue. But then again, our American legal system is ridiculously skewed to enable skewing, so while I personally see no grounds of fault, some might disagree. But even in that, I see nothing that the ruling has changed which will enhance law-suits...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Even in this case, the police received permission to look around the house. As a result incriminating evidence was found. The police did nothing wrong. The asked for and got permission from a resident of the house. In the future who is to determine who has the say in who can enter or not enter the house. |
1) The police did do something wrong. They enacted a search of somebody's house when the party involved was present and explicitly told them not to.
2) Who is to say who can enter or not enter the house?
That's simple. Nothing has changed on that front.
The people THAT LIVE THERE.
The issue is that one resident gave permission, AND AT THE SAME TIME AND LOCATION, another resident refused entry.
The issue is the EXISTANCE of PERMISSION CONFLICT. If the conflict is not present, and permission is granted, then the police can enter.
I see nothing in this ruling which would make the police go out and seek extra permission.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Do police now have to determine who pays the bills in the family to see whose persmission they need? What if both members pay the bills?? This decision has done nothing more than cause more questions to arise regarding police action. |
A lot of the previous rules still apply.
This was a NEW situation that isn't seen in most cases. TWO parties present giving CONFLICTING statements on allowing entry.
THAT is the issue. If you only have one resident present, then the old rules apply.
You're making this a lot harder than it is...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski If some one is not at home and the police get permission to enter from someone who is at home is this legal. Or if we are relying solely upon the idea of property, what about instances where the property is rented, could the police not get permission from the actual owner to search rather than the renter???? |
Yes to the first.
The second is more dicey, and I don't see anything in this ruling that really affects that situation. It isn't changed, unless you have BOTH the landlord AND the tenant present with conflicting desires towards search...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sgtdmski As I have stated, this case will come back around and bite the Court.
dmk |
I imagine it could. Some of the justices on the opposing side stated that the ruling gives too little guidance on how to proceed.
One area I don't see mentioned is if the wife grants access, and the husband is present. Must the police then ask the husband if he also grants access? Must the police then inform the husband that he has the right to deny access, and give him that possibility explicitly explained like a pseudo-Miranda right?
Personally, I would say "no" to the questions based on this ruling. Nothing I have read says that the court specified such procedures. But the answer is not given definitively within the ruling, at least as far as I can see...
"(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher
