And yet you didn't catch that it was unlawful entry?
Supreme Court Rules 8-0 for Police in Major Fourth Amendment Case, Eliminates Provocation Doctrine
- Thread starter Dave70968
- Start Date
I was questioning the provocation rule. What factors played into the shooting.And yet you didn't catch that it was unlawful entry?
However, I am not sure why if they had an arrest warrant and believed the suspect was on the property, why couldn't they enter the shed, if it allowed them to enter the main home?
Thats a bad decision. I have every right to have whatever I want in my hand in my house at any time. Once I walk out to the front porch, that freedom when confronted by LEO goes away?
I just don't understand how they could have ruled that the police can do a no-knock entry. I know they do it, but the reasoning by the courts to allow it escapes/angers me.
I just don't understand how they could have ruled that the police can do a no-knock entry. I know they do it, but the reasoning by the courts to allow it escapes/angers me.
I guess the cop said he did not remember that someone was living in a shed., or remember being informed about it. he checked 3 normal sheds before entering the shed where people were living. Is it normal for a cop to see people living in a shed in someone's backyard?
I would be screwed if my door opened all of the sudden, right now. I would have a gun in my hand too.
However, I do not let people with arrest warrants hang out at my house.
Doesn't matter; they didn't have the authority to be entering any structure on the property.
Neither did the people in this case.
the arrest warrant did not give them the authority to knock and enter the main home?
I agree with Dave.
I don't have people with warrants hang with me either, but we are not the minorty of folks that do.
The definition of "shed" could be suspect as well.
According to my mom before she passed, my 30X40 insulated metal building with heat and air, surround sound, leather office chairs as well as insulation a shed. what the legal definition of a shed is, I don't know.
Nope. They can knock anywhere they want, with or without a warrant of any type. They may not, however, enter without either permission or a search warrant. The arrest warrant gives them the authority to arrest the named subject, but not to enter any structure. A search warrant (different from an arrest warrant) gives them the authority to search property within the scope of the warrant. If it gives a specific structure, they can only enter that structure; if a general address, it would cover any structure thereon. That said, the search authority only extends to places where they can actually find that for which they're searching. If they're looking for a person, they can look in the rooms of the house, but not open the silverware drawer, because a person couldn't possibly be found in the silverware drawer. If they're looking for a stolen car, they could look in the garage, but not the main house (unless they can find an opening in the main house large enough to admit a car).
Remember, the Fourth Amendment is very specific about the form of warrants: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." That language was deliberate; in colonial times, it was common for the King's courts to issue "general warrants," authority to search homes in a general manner looking for anything illegal. The framers wanted to put a stop to that.
For a really good explanation of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, read Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987). The linked Wikipedia article covers it at a high level, but I strongly suggest reading the actual opinion, as it really gets into the details of a number of important concepts; it can be found at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/case.html . The majority opinion isn't terribly long, and Justice Scalia wrote it, so it's a pretty clear, straightforward read (say what you will about his jurisprudence--I run about fifty-fifty on him--the man could damn well write).
Except this case wasn't about whether or not they needed a warrant.
It was about separating the unauthorized entry from the shooting.
Legally and logically speaking the ruling makes sense, if you read it with an open mind and follow the logic....but the whole "my home is my castle" sense gets a little ruffled at the reality of it.
Just goes to prove the point even more: Private property is a myth.
It was about separating the unauthorized entry from the shooting.
Legally and logically speaking the ruling makes sense, if you read it with an open mind and follow the logic....but the whole "my home is my castle" sense gets a little ruffled at the reality of it.
Just goes to prove the point even more: Private property is a myth.
You're exactly correct, and that's the problem.
If this had been anybody but cops, it would have been straight-up castle doctrine. If Mendez had responded to the home invasion by fatally shooting one of the invaders, the other invader(s) could catch a murder 1 beef under the felony murder rule, a rule whose logical basis is that such is a foreseeable consequence of committing a violent felony. But because the home invaders had shiny tin stars, the high court separated that "foreseeable consequence" line of logic, allowing the aggressor(s) to claim a defensive position in a situation they themselves created, turning the ancient tenets of the common-law rule of self-defense on their ear for a Chosen Few.
So, really, this is about creating two classes of citizens: state actors, and "other."
Similar threads
