Posted on 07/04/2015 1:13:35 PM PDT by Okimi2200
Probably not. Treason is a very specific violation.
So, newbie, what exactly do you think their recourse should be, if any?
The issue is not that there was minor damage, there was a direct “intentional infliction of emotional distress”, excessive use of force, false arrest, etc.
The cops were liable for the damage and IIED, etc. The judge did a cover up for the cops. That’s how the game is played against the weak.
A jury would have creamed the city and police, and you know that.
Again, this is Nevada where nothing is as it seems, and corruption goes unpunished as long as Harry Reid is around.
Sorry, all legally wrong.
Please see #44. Like it or not, the cops had full legal authority to be there under an exigent circumstances provision. Their argument is that there is no way to foretell the actions of the domestic assaulting neighbor and by their not being there, great harm could have come to the woman next door. It is a consistently prevailing argument.
Ergo, no liability was created.
The emotional damages were certainly not intentional. They were as a result of the homeowners refusal to obey a lawful order of the LEO.
There was no false arrest. It as not false, as it was caused by the homeowner’s resisting the LEO in the performance of their sworn duty.
This has nothing to do with Nevada. It is simply a case where the LEOs had a legal right to be where they were, like it or not, and all the damages that occurred came as a sole and direct result of the homeowner’s attempted refusal to prevent them from being there.
It has nothing to do with being weak. It has to do with not understanding the law, and then being physically stupid about it.
If you want a Constitutional law system, fine. I agree we should have it. But it works all the time, not just when we like it.
The applicable due process is to be judged dependent upon the circumstances. The cops had no time nor requirement to get a warrant.
Damages? Yes, fix the door, although the damage to the door is the sole and direct result of the homeowner’s refusal to open it.
A smart city would give him a new door. The driving problem here is that all the damages were caused by the homeowner’s refusals, not the LEO’s legal needs nor actions.
Had the homeowner simply opened the door and made his legal arguments later, none of this would have happened. Any legal arguments would have failed, however, as the LEOs had a legal right to entry under an exigent circumstances provision.
Please see #83 and #84.
Recourse? Same as yours: Don't be foolish next time.
I’m not certain that exigency has been tested in this context.
It will be interesting to see how the 4th Am arguments, which I believe we’re not tossed out with this ruling, are met.
Exigency, to my understanding, has been generally held to allow for admissibility in court of otherwise inadmissible evidence. When exigency is claimed, the government retains a high burden because they are effectively exerting a necessary exception to established and accepted rules/laws.
In this case the government is not exerting that it has the ability to enter evidence gathered from that home as it relates to their initial subject, rather that it had an unmitigated right to take the initial action. The burden should remain just as high - there were no options available within the confines of due process, and that life was in imminent risk had they chosen any alternative.
It should be an interesting case. I just hope it’s well argued. The 3rd Am claim has me suspect. It feels like an overly broad claim, but that in and of itself doesn’t mean the case won’t be well represented.
Well thought out, but I think city prevails for two reasons.
In arguing exigency, city has to prove two things
They could have gotten judge to sign warrant, had there been enough time.
Serious negative consequences could have occurred had they waited.
The barrier to exigencious entry is less than the barrier to using evidence found in the process of an exigenious entry.
There is no legal doubt their entry was legal.
Hypothetically, had they founds 10 pounds of cocaine, they could have confiscated it, but could they have used that discovery to charge homeowner with possession with intent to sell??? Probably but not assuredly.
For example, was it out in the open, in plain sight, or since they were inside, did cops use entry as excuse to search house? If it had been in in open, evidence would probably be in. If they went searching for food and found cocaine in freezer, it’s out.
Since entry and therefore arrest as legal, there goes liability. Absent liability, no case.
Secondly, the real world damages are so low, even if there was liability, $5000 fixes everything. Not worth lawyer’s time.
Case dies here.
If there was a freedom loving member of the police force, they would be looking for any and every possible opportunity to invoke this ruling in order to occupy the judge’s house.
But the cops weren’t after them. They wanted to use their house to watch the people’s neighbors. I assume this will be appealed.
Every evil, leftist judge in our country was appointed by the evil leftist in the white hut.
And have you seen the Constitution toilet paper in the WH bathroom?
I used to say that nine out of the ten amendments have been rendered dead letters.
Now it appears that it’s a perfect ten out of ten.
Thanks for identifying yourself early.
Ok, I’ll explain this one more time for you and the rest of kids who took the short bus to school.
This was never a 3d Amendment case. See #44.
This is the case of exigency.
Definition of “exigency:” “a state, especially of need for help or relief, created by some unexpected event.”
These are cases where their is a need for immediate action, where there is no time to get a court order.
For example, if a cop drives past a 2 story house and a woman is hanging out the 2d floor window, with smoke billowing out behind her, he does not need a court order to enter the house.
The homeowner could stand at the door and try to deny entrance all day long. Sorry, he has no legal leg to stand on. Cops go in.
In this case, the life of the woman next door was in danger, and the cops had a reasonably need to be able to observe the scene, possible shoot someone doing her harm, etc.
Two sub points here. It’s not just a cop who could break in during the fire scenario. Any citizen could enter as well, and would not be breaking and entering or trespassing.
Additionally, in the “fire” case, had the cops seen 10 lbs of cocaine in plain sight, it would be entirely admissible in court. If they went into a closet to get her a sheet to cover her because she had been nude when the fire broke out, probably admissible.
Had cops said, we’ll, we’re in the house now, and we think the homeowner’s a drug dealer, let’s search for drugs and they find the cocaine in a safe behind a picture on the wall, confiscatable but not not admissible.
And please, when you post comments such as “serf doesn’t have any choice,” you only make yourself look foolish. Most FReepers can see past that very quickly.
Problem is, they confiscated nothing nor are they in court with the fruits of any search.
All falls under exigent circumstances.
Cops were right, and so was court.
Please see #44.
I’m sorry, but we have a fundamental difference of opinion about the relationship between citizens and government. We know exactly where you stand on such things. We’ve seen many such over the years.
Please tell me you are a lawyer, because that is the only legitimacy (to your statement) not that you have any credibility but rather blind to the facts.
No Warrant, no entry..... and your exigent circumstances don't wash even a little bit, and your #44 is legal masterbation, and as insignificant as your argument.
You can not ignore Marbury V Madison. either the constitution stands or the country fails.
" LEOs had a legal right to entry"
In a nazi police state not in a constitutional republic.
I’m sorry, but your “No Warrant, no entry” may be a great phrase to shout around the bar, but is legal foolishness.
The Supreme Court has recognized four circumstances in which “the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrant-less search [of a person’s person, home, vehicle or controlled area] is totally reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
Exigent circumstances are present as a matter of law:
(1) to engage in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon; (no, LEOs don’t need the homeowner’s permission if they are chasing someone from a felonious car chase, for example.
(2) to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence; (no, LEOs do not have to wait outside for a warrant while the drug dealer flushes all his heroin down the drain)
(3) to prevent a suspect from escaping; (no, if you are a suspect, they can enter a home if there is vocalizeable evidence that you were attempting to flee,)and
(4) to prevent imminent harm to police or third parties. (no, they don’t have to wait outside for a warrant if such delay might have a potential result of a person actually being hurt or in a reasonable likelihood of such harm)
In this case, an ongoing imminent harm to a 3d party was present in the ongoing domestic violence next door, as per #4 above.
I seriously suggest you (and everyone else) review United States v. Washington, 573 F.3d 279, 286-87 before anyone is foolish to follow your advice that they can resist LEO entry in light and/or occasions of exigent circumstances.
That all falls under something called the Constitution. Sorry you do not like it.
Please see #99.
Also, your legal logic is as unstructured and unschooled as your grammar.
Marbury v. Madison? How about Venkatesan v. Dartmouth. Both are equally applicable.
Let me re-phrase that. Both are equally unapplicable.
It’s very dangerous when the people here, Good FReepers All, might depend on your “legal” analysis of the situation.
Please stop before someone here follows your advice and gets hurt.
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.