SCOTUS Taking Up 4th Amendment Case

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • CaptPrice

    Member
    Jul 14, 2019
    58
    Annapolis
    Not exactly 2A per se, but certainly could be important in a 2A case.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/justices-take-up-fourth-amendment-case/

    TLDR: California guy drives drunk and plays loud music. Cop follows him home, turns on his lights (not his siren) as he approaches the house. Cop puts his foot into the garage to prevent the door from closing, comes in the garage, says he smells alcohol on the guy’s breath. In court, the guy says that the cop violated the 4th Amendment because he wasn’t “truly in hot pursuit,” so entering without a warrant is unjustified. Gets shot down and appeals fo Supreme Court. Supreme court says “look, you’re an a-hole and your DUI still stands, but you have a point.” So they will be examining whether or not it’s a 4A violation for entering a home without a warrant for minor offenses/misdemeanors.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,361
    SoMD / West PA
    Read that on yesterday, this is definitely a unique case.

    It is going to be interesting. Previous precedent falls on the side of the 4A.
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    I find it odd the cop allowed him to enter his home in the first place. In his home he might have guns, knives, and other things easily accessed. I could see making the stop in the drive way, but I dunno about in the home.
     

    TheBert

    The Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 10, 2013
    7,687
    Gaithersburg, Maryland
    I find it odd the cop allowed him to enter his home in the first place. In his home he might have guns, knives, and other things easily accessed. I could see making the stop in the drive way, but I dunno about in the home.

    I have a drawer full of knives, we call it the knife drawer just like millions and millions of households across the USA. It has steak knives, paring knifes, other useful knifes for enabling day to day preparation and consuming of food.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,361
    SoMD / West PA
    I have a drawer full of knives, we call it the knife drawer just like millions and millions of households across the USA. It has steak knives, paring knifes, other useful knifes for enabling day to day preparation and consuming of food.

    Being a MDS member, you should have a gun drawer too!
     

    spoon059

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 1, 2018
    5,335
    I find it odd the cop allowed him to enter his home in the first place. In his home he might have guns, knives, and other things easily accessed. I could see making the stop in the drive way, but I dunno about in the home.

    Sounds like the officer attempted to initiate the stop in the public roadway. Defendant failed to yield and pulled into his driveway. Defendant continued to fail to yield and entered his garage. Police continued to "pursue" for a violation. It will be interesting to see how the SC rules, because if they rule that you can simply run to your house and enter your house and police cannot chase you, who would ever stop? Cover your face so that you can't be identified and you can escape arrest for any offense...

    To me, if an officer made a LEGAL demand for you to stop (in this case, turning on his lights to indicate a traffic stop) and you fail to yield, there is no 4th amendment protection.
     

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    The fourth amendment generally requires warrants for searches, with the exception of emergencies. I hardly believe a misdemeanor of which there is no danger of life or limb qualifies. If they evade a lawful stop and there is no alleged emergency to public safety get a warrant and add a charge of evading. There is no alleged conduct would endanger public safety by having to get a warrant, or even evidence that could be destroyed. Hypothetical, but if the law was the same for loud music in the home, and a there was an alleged violation, would police have to get a warrant to enter and arrest or could they enter without a warrant?

    In my view, if the alleged conduct would not justify a warrantless search if the conduct/violation occurred in the home, pursuit of an individual engaged in the same conduct should also not justify a warrantless search.

    It should be an interesting case, not at all helped by the fact that the cop didn't use his siren and from the article looked like he turned his lights on at the last minuet.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,361
    SoMD / West PA
    To me, if an officer made a LEGAL demand for you to stop (in this case, turning on his lights to indicate a traffic stop) and you fail to yield, there is no 4th amendment protection.

    That aspect is not up for debate, as it is reasonable.

    The forcing of the garage door open, by placing the officers foot in the path of the safety feature is the complicated question.
     

    Dingo3

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 4, 2013
    2,777
    Fredneck
    I can see not turning on the siren. I live across the street from a firehouse and late at night, if there’s no traffic, they use lights only for about a city until leaving the residential area. I could see the officer not wanting to distract an already impaired driver with sound as well as the lights; although the loud music may have prevented the driver from hearing the siren. As for the entry into the garage; that I have a problem with. The impaired driver was already at his residence so why not call for another officer to watch the back of the house while a warrant is drawn up? He was already at his home so they could have just waited until he left again. I hope some LEO or retired LEO could chime in.

    I’m glad that a DUI was taken care of but I’m not sure I think the methods used will stand up to Constitutional muster
     

    randomuser

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 12, 2018
    5,775
    Baltimore County
    I can see not turning on the siren. I live across the street from a firehouse and late at night, if there’s no traffic, they use lights only for about a city until leaving the residential area. I could see the officer not wanting to distract an already impaired driver with sound as well as the lights; although the loud music may have prevented the driver from hearing the siren. As for the entry into the garage; that I have a problem with. The impaired driver was already at his residence so why not call for another officer to watch the back of the house while a warrant is drawn up? He was already at his home so they could have just waited until he left again. I hope some LEO or retired LEO could chime in.

    I’m glad that a DUI was taken care of but I’m not sure I think the methods used will stand up to Constitutional muster

    According to the article, the officer only thought the driver was drinking after he opened the door and said he smelled alcohol.

    How long was the driver followed with lights on? lights on for 1 mile or did the cop flip the switch as the guy was pulling into his garage and say that the guy was evading?

    When the officer put his foot in the door to open it back up, was the driver 20' away or was he standing literally on the other side of the door facing the officer?

    I'd be interested to see any video of this event.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    I can see not turning on the siren. I live across the street from a firehouse and late at night, if there’s no traffic, they use lights only for about a city until leaving the residential area. I could see the officer not wanting to distract an already impaired driver with sound as well as the lights; although the loud music may have prevented the driver from hearing the siren. As for the entry into the garage; that I have a problem with. The impaired driver was already at his residence so why not call for another officer to watch the back of the house while a warrant is drawn up? He was already at his home so they could have just waited until he left again. I hope some LEO or retired LEO could chime in.

    I’m glad that a DUI was taken care of but I’m not sure I think the methods used will stand up to Constitutional muster

    The argument would be the driver started chugging as soon as he walked into his house and wasn't impaired in his vehicle.

    Sometimes a criminal gets away with his crime.
     

    Brikhaus

    Active Member
    Jun 7, 2013
    252
    Western Marylandistan
    The fourth amendment generally requires warrants for searches, with the exception of emergencies. I hardly believe a misdemeanor of which there is no danger of life or limb qualifies. If they evade a lawful stop and there is no alleged emergency to public safety get a warrant and add a charge of evading. There is no alleged conduct would endanger public safety by having to get a warrant, or even evidence that could be destroyed. Hypothetical, but if the law was the same for loud music in the home, and a there was an alleged violation, would police have to get a warrant to enter and arrest or could they enter without a warrant?

    In my view, if the alleged conduct would not justify a warrantless search if the conduct/violation occurred in the home, pursuit of an individual engaged in the same conduct should also not justify a warrantless search.

    It should be an interesting case, not at all helped by the fact that the cop didn't use his siren and from the article looked like he turned his lights on at the last minuet.


    From the link- "For example, under California law, a “fresh pursuit” results when the following circumstances exist:

    Serious felony: Officers had probable cause to arrest the suspect for a serious felony, usually a serious and violent felony.

    Diligence: Officers were diligent in their investigation.

    Suspect in house: Officers reasonably believed the suspect was presently inside a certain house or other private place. If it’s the suspect’s residence, officers must have reasonably believed the suspect was inside; but if it is the home of a third person, such as a friend or relative of the suspect, officers must have had probable cause to believe the suspect was inside.

    Circumstantial evidence of flight: There were circumstances indicating the suspect was in active flight or soon would be."

    I don't know if the court wants all of the above conditions to be met before allowing officers to pursue "freshly," or if they consider the factors that the officer did have. A "totality of the circumstances" type of view?

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fresh-pursuit/
     

    Glaron

    Camp pureblood 13R
    BANNED!!!
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 20, 2013
    12,752
    Virginia
    I think the problem we don't know how far he was followed. All that was on the web was loud music and honking a few times. That is not a measurable offense. :shrug:

    One thing Ive learned from this board is just to standby and watch when all the facts are not out.
     

    CaptPrice

    Member
    Jul 14, 2019
    58
    Annapolis
    According to the article, the officer only thought the driver was drinking after he opened the door and said he smelled alcohol.

    How long was the driver followed with lights on? lights on for 1 mile or did the cop flip the switch as the guy was pulling into his garage and say that the guy was evading?

    When the officer put his foot in the door to open it back up, was the driver 20' away or was he standing literally on the other side of the door facing the officer?

    I'd be interested to see any video of this event.


    When i read the article it seemed like the lights were turned on close to the home


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    Without reading I don't see the issue. The driver is legally "seized" and is attempting flight. Unless CA limits forcible entry to felonies only, I'm failing to see a problem. The crime he was seized for would be fleeing and eluding. Smelling the EOTH during the investigation is separate and will probably stand valid.

    I'm not really sure what point the court is trying to clarify here. Maybe the shock the legal world and rule that the police can't arrest someone for fleeing a traffic stop.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,899
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom