Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

7th Circuit upholds warrantless entry, seizure of gun rights activist
Journal Sentinel ^ | 05/13/2014 | Bruce Vielmetti

Posted on 05/14/2014 9:55:15 AM PDT by aimhigh

Milwaukee police who forced their way into a gun rights advocate's home without a warrant, took her for an emergency mental evaluation and seized her gun were justified under the circumstances and protected from her civil rights claims, a federal appeals court has ruled.

"The intrusions upon Sutterfield's privacy were profound," Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel. "At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one's home."

But the court also found, that on the other hand, "There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm."

(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; 4thamendment; 7thcircuit; banglist; bush41appointee; communism; confrontationwatch; court; dissent; donutwatch; feos; fourthamendment; gopestablishment; ilanarover; ilanarovner; lawsuit; liberalagenda; mentalevaluation; milwaukee; rino; ruling; secondamendment; stasi; warrant
Yup, it was for her own good. The road paved with good intentions . . . .
1 posted on 05/14/2014 9:55:15 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

This is how the Soviet Union did it, declared dissidents mentally deficient.


2 posted on 05/14/2014 9:56:14 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: GeronL

So did the Nazi’s


4 posted on 05/14/2014 9:57:52 AM PDT by defconw (Well now what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
The intent of the officers has no bearing on the law in this case.

If she appeals, she'll win.

5 posted on 05/14/2014 9:59:26 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

Wow! Must be a DimoKKKRAT judge.


6 posted on 05/14/2014 9:59:47 AM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

You could be right. Now, who funds the woman’s fight?

The government can spend all it wants, and you as a citizen have to cough up the cash to keep defending your rights.

It really sucks!


7 posted on 05/14/2014 10:01:04 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Things probably will not get better until that starts happening to a few of our robed masters.


8 posted on 05/14/2014 10:02:35 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


9 posted on 05/14/2014 10:03:23 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

I hate that I notice this, and I HATE that it’s true, but women judges are one of our worst enemies.


10 posted on 05/14/2014 10:07:42 AM PDT by Shimmer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

Rovner’s parents came here from Latvia to escape Nazism. And she’s been working to bring Nazism here since 1992? Some of the worst RINOs are in the federal court system, and this Bush 41 appointee is more than exemplary of same.


11 posted on 05/14/2014 10:08:06 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1

Got nothing to do with their sex. All to do with their politics. Are the liberal male judges really different from the liberal female judges? I don’t see a difference.


12 posted on 05/14/2014 10:09:04 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

Psychiatrist Office

Enter At Your Own Risk


13 posted on 05/14/2014 10:10:24 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

If you value your right to posess a firearm you can’t seek medical advise for any mental issues, including depression. That’s just the way it is right now.


14 posted on 05/14/2014 10:11:57 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

The facts as presented in this article indicate that she is nuts.

When the cops are at your door to take you for a psyche eval - do not call 911. It really won’t help.


15 posted on 05/14/2014 10:12:22 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
"How were the officers to know that Sutterfield was competent to assess the state of her own mental health or that, regardless of what she herself said, there was no longer any risk that she might harm herself?" the court wrote.

That is one way to see it.
Here is another way.

"How were the officers to know that Sutterfield (fill in this blank with the name of who concerns you for the moment) was competent to assess the state of her his own mental health or that, regardless of what she herself he said, there was no longer any risk that she he might harm herself himself?" the court wrote.

16 posted on 05/14/2014 10:12:57 AM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
The Left’s War on Women continues unabated.
17 posted on 05/14/2014 10:13:10 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

This decision was from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. She will now have to try to get it heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.


18 posted on 05/14/2014 10:13:29 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh; null and void
"But the court also found, that on the other hand, "There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm."

I'm pretty sure the local Peasants of Liberty group would argue that the arrival of police put Sutterfield directly in harm's way.

And her little dog, too. And her 93-year-old grandmother...

19 posted on 05/14/2014 10:14:12 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
Wow! Must be a DimoKKKRAT judge.

Wrong.

Rovner, Ilana Kara Diamond
Born 1938 in Riga, Latvia
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on June 19, 1984, to a seat vacated by Joel Flaum. Confirmed by the Senate on September 12, 1984, and received commission on September 12, 1984. Service terminated on August 17, 1992, due to appointment to another judicial position.
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on July 2, 1992, to a seat vacated by Harlington Wood Jr.. Confirmed by the Senate on August 12, 1992, and received commission on August 17, 1992.
Education:
Bryn Mawr College, A.B., 1960
Chicago-Kent College of Law, J.D., 1966
Professional Career:
Legal researcher, Richard J. Phelan, Esq., Chicago, Illinois, 1971
Law clerk, Hon. James B. Parsons, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 1972-1973
Assistant U.S. attorney, Northern District of Illinois, 1973-1977; deputy chief, Public Protection Unit, 1975-1976; chief, Public Protection Unit, 1976-1977
Deputy governor and legal counsel, Gov. James R. Thompson, Illinois, 1977-1984

20 posted on 05/14/2014 10:15:22 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
Wow! Must be a DimoKKKRAT judge.

A lot of quote-unquote "conservative" judges are actually "law and order" types, who believe that the police are never wrong, that any search is legal, and that anyone accused of any crime is guilty. Ronald Reagan's judicial appointees included many of this ilk. On the current Supreme Court, Alito and Thomas are good examples of this type of "conservative" thinking (but Scalia is not).

21 posted on 05/14/2014 10:20:00 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

No, I don’t either, it just seems like all women judges are uniformly liberal and pass down absolutely senseless decisions. Just watch and see. If it’s a woman, it’s a bad decision. (constitutionally speaking)


22 posted on 05/14/2014 10:35:57 AM PDT by Shimmer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

So let me see if I understand this, if the government thinks people who own a gun are a danger to themselves, the government can force entry in to your home without a warrant, seize your gun, Damn. These people are so caring!


23 posted on 05/14/2014 10:48:08 AM PDT by stockpirate (Only a tidal wave of tyrants blood will return our tree of liberty......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

“If you value your right to posess a firearm you can’t seek medical advise for any mental issues, including depression. That’s just the way it is right now.”

The common “throwaway questions” at the ER are:

Do you feel threatened today?
Do you have any feelings about doing yourself harm?
And at the doctors:
Do you own firearms?

Answering these questions will get you a visit from the cops with the intent of taking your guns.


24 posted on 05/14/2014 11:03:13 AM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Shimmer1
I hate that I notice this, and I HATE that it’s true, but women judges are one of our worst enemies.

Federal Courts of Appeals sit in 3-judge panels. There were two male judges on this panel-- both appointed by Ronald Reagan-- who both joined the decision.

25 posted on 05/14/2014 11:46:28 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

These were not “liberal” judges. Of the three judges on the panel, two (Flaum and Manion) were appointed to the Court of Appeals by Ronald Reagan, and the author of the opinion was appointed a trial judge by Reagan and then elevated to the Court of Appeals by George H.W. Bush. All three are considered “conservative” judges by lawyers who practice in the 7th Circuit.


26 posted on 05/14/2014 11:49:08 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Of course they’re liberals. RINO = liberal. Considered “conservative” by whom, other RINOs?


27 posted on 05/14/2014 11:52:47 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vette6387
"Answering these questions will get you a visit from the cops with the intent of taking your guns."

Or more specifically, answering these questions with anything other than "no" can cost you your guns.

28 posted on 05/14/2014 11:53:13 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Of course they’re liberals.

Can you show me any other "liberal" rulings they made? As I pointed out above, they are from the school of "law and order" conservatives.

29 posted on 05/14/2014 11:58:13 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Are you calling this a conservative ruling, when it attacks the Second and Fourth Amendments?

You don’t understand basic human relations, it seems. One huge liberal ruling cancels out all past rulings that may be considered “conservative”, presuming they exist; it’s not a case of conservative rulings outweighing liberal ones by numbers or degrees. No strawman arguments, please.


30 posted on 05/14/2014 12:01:26 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

A good question.


31 posted on 05/14/2014 12:03:11 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

It is most definitely a leftwing ruling.


32 posted on 05/14/2014 12:03:30 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
A lot of quote-unquote "conservative" judges are actually "law and order" types, who believe that the police are never wrong, that any search is legal, and that anyone accused of any crime is guilty. Ronald Reagan's judicial appointees included many of this ilk. On the current Supreme Court, Alito and Thomas are good examples of this type of "conservative" thinking (but Scalia is not).

I dunno; Thomas dissented in Raich -- the first paragraph of which reads:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

33 posted on 05/14/2014 12:07:32 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Seems like these threads full of cognitive dissonance are getting more frequent. A lot of people just can’t wake up to the fact that it’s not right vs left. When there’s a boot pinning your neck to the ground it doesn’t matter if it’s the left boot or the right boot.


34 posted on 05/14/2014 12:09:21 PM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
That's one reason I try to frame my political complaints into constitutional vs. contraconstitutional, or statism vs. liberty, or moral vs. immoral.
(The NSA domestic espionage is a good example of something that can be phrased in each of these three areas, and usually leaves a bad impression of the agency if seriously considered.)
35 posted on 05/14/2014 12:29:43 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Well, men too, but I stand by my observation though


36 posted on 05/14/2014 12:48:35 PM PDT by Shimmer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Thomas seems to be about the only member who understands that Wickard was a complete travesty, and that "interstate commerce" means what it says-- commerce that crosses state lines.
37 posted on 05/14/2014 12:56:01 PM PDT by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

Correct: it’s public employees (and their dependents, whether welfare queens or big banks) vs. the rest of us, who are slowly being forced to choose between serfdom or open revolt.


38 posted on 05/14/2014 12:57:29 PM PDT by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Yep. After the Nov elections I look for fedzilla to start crosschecking medical records with ccw permits, 4473s and other illegal databases.


39 posted on 05/14/2014 3:51:23 PM PDT by Eagles6 (Valley Forge Redux. If not now, when? If not here, where?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

If I recall, Nazi Germany relied more on word of mouth than on their own investigations when it came to throwing people in jail. It would seem the door to that happening in America is now open.


40 posted on 05/15/2014 3:45:46 AM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be earned and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Sutterfield v City of Milwaukee

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D05-09/C:12-2272:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1342808:S:0


41 posted on 05/19/2014 8:41:04 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson