Skip to comments.7th Circuit upholds warrantless entry, seizure of gun rights activist
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 ...
This is how the Soviet Union did it, declared dissidents mentally deficient.
So did the Nazi’s
If she appeals, she'll win.
Wow! Must be a DimoKKKRAT judge.
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!
Things probably will not get better until that starts happening to a few of our robed masters.
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!
I hate that I notice this, and I HATE that it’s true, but women judges are one of our worst enemies.
Rovners parents came here from Latvia to escape Nazism. And shes 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.
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.
Enter At Your Own Risk
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 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Bryn Mawr College, A.B., 1960
Chicago-Kent College of Law, J.D., 1966
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
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).
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)
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!
“If you value your right to posess a firearm you cant seek medical advise for any mental issues, including depression. Thats 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.
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.
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.
Of course they’re liberals. RINO = liberal. Considered “conservative” by whom, other RINOs?
Or more specifically, answering these questions with anything other than "no" can cost you your guns.
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.
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.
A good question.
It is most definitely a leftwing ruling.
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 anythingand the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
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.
Well, men too, but I stand by my observation though
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.
Yep. After the Nov elections I look for fedzilla to start crosschecking medical records with ccw permits, 4473s and other illegal databases.
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.
Sutterfield v City of Milwaukee