Washington Court: Refusing To Let Cops Enter Home Without Warrants Isn't Obstruction [Updated]

Forbes ^ | April 19, 2019 | Nick Sibilla

[Twotone]

UPDATE: On Friday afternoon, the Washington Supreme Court issued an order that amended the lead opinion by striking out its conclusion and replacing it with the following:

“ “We in the lead opinion would hold the city presented insufficient evidence to sustain [Solomon] McLemore’s conviction and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, we recognize this opinion has garnered only four signatures. ‘Therefore, there being no majority for the reversal of the judgment of the trial court, it necessarily stands affirmed, and the order of this court is that the judgment appealed from be and it is hereby affirmed.’”

So while the lead opinion initially would have reversed the conviction, because the court split evenly, McLemore’s conviction in the trial court still stands. The rest of the piece has been updated accordingly.

McLemore’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment, while the Shoreline Prosecutor’s Office wrote that “the city is still considering whether to file a motion to clarify.”

A man who refused to open his door to let police enter his home without a warrant should not have been convicted for obstruction of justice, the lead opinion for the Washington Supreme Court concluded on Thursday. “Criminalizing the refusal to open one’s own door to a warrantless entry would be enormously chilling and inconsistent with our deeply held constitutional values,” Justice Steven Gonzalez wrote in Shoreline v. McLemore.

[MeganC]

If it’s a criminal offense to close your door to armed men who have no legal right to enter your home then you may as well kill them because there’s no legal limit on anything else they might do to you.

[a fool in paradise]

Do DummyCraps in Congress and the enemedia know this?

[LeoTDB69]

Hell, maybe one day we can be cited for obstruction simply for pleading not guilty.

[MeganC]

“Hell, maybe one day we can be cited for obstruction simply for pleading not guilty.”

Well how DARE you question the infallible wisdom of the High Priests Of the Shiny Badge! Of COURSE it should be a crime to plead not guilty! You wouldn’t even be arrested if you weren’t guilty!

[s]

[WASCWatch]

Washington State Supreme Court is the most corrupt state supreme court in the country. This statement is based on personal knowledge backed up by court records, emails, and recorded phone calls.

See my screen name.

[21twelve]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

When our kids were little I had the policy of not allowing cops inside the house. The opportunity only came a few times with me calling them about stuff (the guy jumping over my fence and running off when I confronted him, the abandoned car on the street, etc.).

I was always paranoid they would see the mess of toys on the floor and my toddler girl running around with her shirt off and take her to CPS!

One time the cop even asked if he could step inside. (It was raining). I said no - but I can get you an umbrella. (He declined!)

[SaveFerris]

[A man who refused to open his door to let police enter his home without a warrant should not have been convicted for obstruction of justice, the lead opinion for the Washington Supreme Court concluded on Thursday. “Criminalizing the refusal to open one’s own door to a warrantless entry would be enormously chilling and inconsistent with our deeply held constitutional values,” Justice Steven Gonzalez wrote in Shoreline v. McLemore.]

Maybe I’m reading this incorrectly but seems like a bit of common sense according to the Bill of Rights.

Am I wrong?

[DuncanWaring]

No … there are a lot of things that happen that are clear violations of common sense readings of the Bill of Rights.

[DesertRhino]

“A man who refused to open his door to let police enter his home without a warrant should not have been convicted for obstruction of justice”

The jackass who charged him should be arrested and charged with violating his civil rights under color of law. A simple exercise of your constitutional rights is a crime?

[righttackle44]

There is a growing concern across the country, aided by, believe it or not, YouTube videos, that many, most, or virtually all cops are corrupt and are willing to shoot to kill civilians of any color or station, at the slightest provocation.

I, too, am beginning to see that many cops are not what we believe they should be--good guys, protectors of our person and rights.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Hell, maybe one day we can be cited for obstruction simply for pleading not guilty.

That's not a far fetched prediction. The US is a banana republic in all but name.

[SaveFerris]

Seems like it - thanks

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Four thoughts:

IF my home is wrongly targeted as a drug house or something, I’m going down fighting.

IF they show up without a warrant, I’m going down fighting.

IF they shoot any of my dogs (they can have the cats, LOL!), I’m going down fighting.

I’d LIKE to think that I’ve led my life in such a way (not so much as a speeding ticket!) that they’d look me up in whatever they look you up in, and see they’re at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong person, in the FIRST place.

[WASCWatch]

Cops break into a house in Texas in the middle of the night with or without a warrant and get killed, the resident is likely not going to be charged; and if charged, may very well not be convicted.

[Leaning Right]

> there are a lot of things that happen that are clear violations of common sense readings of the Bill of Rights <

Here’s one. It’s my pet peeve.

The 6th Amendment guarantees you the right to a jury trial in ALL criminal cases:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...”

Well, no said the US Supreme Court in 1970. “All” doesn’t mean “all”. You have a right to a jury trial only if the penalty is more than six months imprisonment.

So if you are charged with a crime with a penalty of six months or less, no jury for you. Better be extra nice to the judge. Because he’s also your jury.

[TigersEye]

I, too, am beginning to see that many cops are not what we believe they should be--good guys, protectors of our person and rights.

That's to be expected when 4 out of 8 justices on a state supreme court think the Constitution is toilet paper.

[William Tell]

The solution is simple really.

The legislature need only create a new criminal offense called "Obstruction of Injustice".

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master."

[Uncle Miltie]

I have lived in cities with excellent and abhorrent police.

In Fargo, ND, the police were squeaky clean, respectful, honest, friendly, and followed the law carefully. And most were gay! Ha!

In Medford, OR, the police were just the most well armed gang in town. I NEVER saw a police car travel one block without violating the law. EVER. Anything you could ever imagine getting a ticket for, they did each and every block they drove. They were a danger to themselves and others. Mean, vindictive, corrupt, etc.

In an average town, probably 1-5% are bad guys. They give the rest a bad name. But since the fraction that are bad guys are not insubstantial, one has to assume the officer in front of you is not your friend.

[onona]

Geez Diana, the cats ??