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!
  • mopar92

    Official MDS Court Jester
    May 5, 2011
    9,513
    Taneytown
    Dude should've touched his house and yelled "base!"
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    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.

    At what point is a police officer authorized to force entry into a home? It wasn't until after forced entry, that a crime was discovered.

    That is the question, that complicates the traffic stop.

    We would all agree you are correct, if the incident happened along the road somewhere.
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    At what point is a police officer authorized to force entry into a home? It wasn't until after forced entry, that a crime was discovered.

    That is the question, that complicates the traffic stop.

    We would all agree you are correct, if the incident happened along the road somewhere.

    What case says the "house" becomes "base" where the police can't "tag" the "runner"? If he failed to yield and fled the traffic stop that is the arrest-able offense...at least in MD. The DUI comes as the fruit of the "tag". If the court rules the "tag" happened after the "runner" got to the "base" that is messy. It encourages the "runner" to ignore commands and make it to the "base" and you are "safe".

    Should they institute "playground" rules where you can only stand on "base" for a 30 count?

    Traffic offenses, unless otherwise stated, are Misd. in MD. Can the police not chase someone in fresh pursuit for Misd? Including into a home?

    I'll speculate it is possible the the police might not realize it is the persons home. Would that change something? Maybe he fled to a house he happens to see the door open to. Does that mean the police need to abandon their attempt to "tag" the runner?

    We'll see.
     

    Steel Hunter

    Active Member
    Nov 10, 2019
    548
    What case says the "house" becomes "base" where the police can't "tag" the "runner"? If he failed to yield and fled the traffic stop that is the arrest-able offense...at least in MD. The DUI comes as the fruit of the "tag". If the court rules the "tag" happened after the "runner" got to the "base" that is messy. It encourages the "runner" to ignore commands and make it to the "base" and you are "safe".

    Should they institute "playground" rules where you can only stand on "base" for a 30 count?

    Traffic offenses, unless otherwise stated, are Misd. in MD. Can the police not chase someone in fresh pursuit for Misd? Including into a home?

    I'll speculate it is possible the the police might not realize it is the persons home. Would that change something? Maybe he fled to a house he happens to see the door open to. Does that mean the police need to abandon their attempt to "tag" the runner?

    We'll see.

    Based on how the article is written it sounds to me like there wasn't actually a clear traffic stop. It reads as though the officer flicked their lights on and quickly exited their car to try and rush the garage as it was closing and made it there in time before it closed all the way. The officer may not have had any proof of a DUI before entering the home. While I certainly won't give any support to a drunk driver, the 4th amendment issue is legitimate here because this could really have been an officer forcibly making entry without ever making a real traffic stop and without a warrant.

    Typically for fleeing a traffic stop there are felony charges involved for the act of fleeing or eluding so that makes the case that forced entry is no longer for a misdemeanor, but rather pursuit of a felony suspect.
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    Just read the abstract that was linked. Going off that fact pattern, they'll have to maintain the lawful stop for loud music and honking horn violations and subsequent hot pursuit. Without that, the officer's foot in the door is crossing the threshold. Even him going up to the garage violates curtilage 4A protections as recognized in Flordia v. Jardines. For 4A questions, all things must now be weighed against the case US v. Jones. I'm not bothering putting effort to that. Perhaps someone else can carry the torch further...

    One additional thought: The timing of activating emergency lights could play heavily into the validity of the stop. The defendant must have reasonably known within jurisdiction that the officer was conducting a traffic stop.
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    He's more concerned with the court's "legacy" and believes more in stare decisis than actually ruling correctly.

    AKA being popular on the DC cocktail circuit and avoiding uncomfortable conversations at his country club.

    He needs to be more like Thomas. Judge a man by who his enemies are.
     

    FoxSlayer

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Sep 8, 2020
    54
    I don’t get it. It’s like Roberts decided to turn into an attention white all of a sudden.

    They have leverage on him.

    Before the Obama communist care decision his house was broken into. Something was found or planted.

    Also there are rumors of his adopted children being kidnapped from their parents
     

    FoxSlayer

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Sep 8, 2020
    54
    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.

    Very humorous you have a Orwell quote in your signature.

    Lol
     

    Glaron

    Camp pureblood 13R
    BANNED!!!
    MDS Supporter
    Mar 20, 2013
    12,752
    Virginia
    Just to mess with yall....


    In California.
    If I get this right loud music and honking.. Then police can do a home invasion.

    Looting a store dry of all goods to force it to close and go into bankruptcy is a protected right.

    Yeah, I used a little emphasis to have fun.
     

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    Since the government can mail out citations for traffic offenses, I see no reason why they can't call in a warrant to enter the home...I guess he should have pitted him before he entered the driveway.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    Lange v. California (20-18)

    Under the Fourth Amendment, pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always or categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home.
     

    daNattyFatty

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 27, 2009
    3,908
    Bel Air, MD
    Lange v. California (20-18)

    Under the Fourth Amendment, pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always or categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home.


    I haven’t read anything but your post……

    So now cops, in the heat of a chase, have to figure out misdemeanor vs felony for fresh pursuit?!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    I haven’t read anything but your post……

    So now cops, in the heat of a chase, have to figure out misdemeanor vs felony for fresh pursuit?!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    Pretty much.

    Once a persuee touches home plate per se, then that is where a warrant is needed.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I haven’t read anything but your post……

    So now cops, in the heat of a chase, have to figure out misdemeanor vs felony for fresh pursuit?!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    Not really. Cops generally know WHY they are pursuing a suspect. If they are just guessing because "a guy ran". Well that was a real shitty reason even before the decision.

    Unless it was buried in the opinion and I missed reading summaries, police can still pursue a subject under exigent circumstances if they believe waiting for a warrant could lead to a felony crime or harm to another individual.

    A made up example, but if a cop was chasing you for public urination and drunkenness and heard you threaten your kid that you were going to knock their teeth out as they were running in to their house once you got back inside they wouldn't need to wait on a warrant to pursue you in to your house.

    Part of it is that cops don't get to make the decision that you are guilty of committing a crime or that what you did is even necessarily a crime. They can suspect you of a crime.

    Under the 4th, some things are just sacrosanct without a warrant for good reasons. The king and his agents acted in bad faith often enough. Want to see modern precedent on that? Bad cops plant evidence all the time. Is that why the 4th exists? No, but it is a reason.

    Do some cops sometimes make up things to justify warrantless searches? yes absolutely. Are cops sometimes mistaken that a crime occurred or that the person they are pursuing is even the actual criminal? Yes.

    SCOTUS determined that the 4th amendment intentionally sets a high bar and that the likely injury to individuals and the public is higher by allowing law enforcement to pursue a suspect in to a private residence under only suspicion of a misdemeanor charge than the public good of preventing the suspect from possibly being able to "get away" or try to cover up their crime (for example in this DUI case, or flushing drugs, etc.)

    Though on the get away part, yes it would be more resources, but the remedy there is a couple of cops wait around in case the suspect comes out while another one gets the warrant.

    I think part of this goes also to the fact that misdemeanors should be MINOR crimes. If it is really a minor crime, if a suspect escapes justice, then the foundations of society shouldn't collapse.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,475
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom