Ryburn v Huff, 2012 Supreme Court ruled this ok....?

[SanPedroShooter]

Upon entering the house, the officers remained in the living room with Mrs. Huff and Vincent. Eventually, Vincent's father entered the room and challenged the officers' authority to be there. The officers remained inside the house for a total of 5 to 10 minutes. During that time, the officers talked to Mr. Huff and Vincent. They did not conduct any search of Mr. Huff, Mrs. Huff, or Vincent, or any of their property. The officers ultimately concluded that the rumor about Vincent was false, and they reported their conclusion to the school. Id., at 4.

So they followed her in, based on their concern over what they describe as "odd behavior", talk to the suspects for five or ten minutes, conduct no search and leave.

It sounds like they were gonna get in there, one way or another. I suppose this would fall under "exigent circumstance".

[scarville]

And were you there to see the "Rush back into the house" POLICE LIE ALL THE TIME.....

Say it isn't so!

Seriously, I think (hope?) most folks here realize that the portmanteau "testilying" entered the lexicon for good reasons.

[Curley Red]

POLICE LIE ALL THE TIME.....

Uuhhhh yeah, right, keep telling yourself that. Glad to see you don't paint with a broad brush.

[a1c]

Some wording that I found concerning was...

"The panel majority did not heed the district court's wise admonition that judges should be cautious about second-guessing a police officer's assessment, made on the scene, of the danger presented by a particular situation,"

That appears to provide quite a bit of lattitude to me, however I have not read the ruling.

This ALREADY is in the books. LEOs make such decisions all the time, for instance if they're knocking at a door and smell gas, or see someone or a gun laying on the floor, see a blood splatter on a window... Then they can break in without a warrant. It's codified as exigent circumstance.

[BobB35]

Uuhhhh yeah, right, keep telling yourself that. Glad to see you don't paint with a broad brush.

Attend an 832 academy, When you are taught that lying is perfectly acceptable behavior in the line of duty...kind of makes it difficult to see LEO as Bastions of truthfulness...

[bone1]

Exigent circumstances are pretty clearly laid out, though there is no definite test. There must be imminent danger, potential escape of suspect, or destruction of evidence. This wasn't the case here. Both mother and child were present in the house. The cops conducted no search when in the property. This is inconsistent with the imminent danger rationale, escape rationale, or destruction of evidence rationale.

People do lie, so do cops. Who knows what actually happened, but it's irrelevant here though. Simply going back inside or even running doesn't rise to the level of exigent circumstances. At least it shouldn't. Exercising your right to terminate the contact shouldn't be suspicious. Exercising your rights to not permit entry into your house should not be support of odd behavior.

The 4th amendment loses again.

[sergtjim]

Exigent circumstances are pretty clearly laid out, though there is no definite test. There must be imminent danger, potential escape of suspect, or destruction of evidence. This wasn't the case here. Both mother and child were present in the house. The cops conducted no search when in the property. This is inconsistent with the imminent danger rationale, escape rationale, or destruction of evidence rationale.

People do lie, so do cops. Who knows what actually happened, but it's irrelevant here though. Simply going back inside or even running doesn't rise to the level of exigent circumstances. At least it shouldn't. Exercising your right to terminate the contact shouldn't be suspicious. Exercising your rights to not permit entry into your house should be support of odd behavior.

The 4th amendment loses again.

A LEO may conduct a limited search of a limited area for purposes of insuring his own safety based on conduct of the person with whom he is in contact. Example-during a traffic stop, the driver leans downwards out of view, then becomes upright again. This conduct allows the officer to conduct a limited search of the front seat lunge area for weapons.

I see this as similar. If anything, props to the cops for their restraint. In my view, they would have been justified in handcuffing the occupants while they checked the immediate surrounding area and the persons for weapons, detonators, or explosives.

Prepared for flames.

[SanPedroShooter]

They should have hogtied them too....

I think their restraint is what get them off the hook. If they were to handcuff or restrain everyone in the house and tear the place apart looking for weapons, I would expect them to lose, escpecially considering the complaint was false to begin with. Exigent circumstance only goes so far.

[bone1]

So the officers, fearing for their safety, enter the home based on exigent circumstances, yet once in the house they don't conduct a search of either the property or the persons present. That is inconsistent with the rationale of imminent danger or officers feeling their safety was at risk.

I dont believe the Terry search is permitted unless the person is actually being detained, but I could be wrong on that. It's not like officers have free reign to do pat downs of everyone they walk by down the street.

A traffic stop is a detention which is completely different than the officers talking with this person on the front steps of her house after she'd already refused them entry. That was not a detention.

[cruising7388]

The ends are never supposed to justify the means.

That's a pretty lofty statement, but does it square well with real world conditions? For example, taking out bin Laden was a very desirable end, but the success of the mission depended on maintaining a level of secrecy and surprise that by definition violated the sovereignty of another country. Can you declare war on an individual in another country without declaring war on the country itself? The lines drawn by the ends-means test seems to be getting much more blurred than they used to be. Domestically, aren't we suffering from the same blurred distinctions? The current policy that permits the indefinite detention of American citizens is an attempt to preclude domestic terrorist acts - a pretty desirable end. But the means for accomplishing this is effectively trashing the writ of habeas corpus afforded every citizen by the Constitution. So, can the ends become important enough that the means become irrelevant? Or can the means become important enough that the ends become irrelevant? Operators are standing by for your call.

[cruising7388]

What is an "unsigned" decision?

Question: What is an "unsigned" decision?

Answer: It is a cop out and a judicial disgrace.

Explanation: An unsigned decision is a judicial decision made en banc for which no individual judge or justice has to acknowledge any responsibility.

[Vetteodyssey]

That's why if the police show up at your door, you walk out and lock the door behind you to talk to them. Running back in when asked about guns is an officer safety issue. The case said, "Upon entering the house, the officers remained in the living room with Mrs. Huff and Vincent." They didn't search the house they just made sure she wasn't going to go grab a weapon. Yea, it sucks, but don't make the cops nervous and this could have been resolved on the front steps.

[SanPedroShooter]

So the officers, fearing for their safety, enter the home based on exigent circumstances, yet once in the house they don't conduct a search of either the property or the persons present. That is inconsistent with the rationale of imminent danger or officers feeling their safety was at risk.

I dont believe the Terry search is permitted unless the person is actually being detained, but I could be wrong on that. It's not like officers have free reign to do pat downs of everyone they walk by down the street.

A traffic stop is a detention which is completely different than the officers talking with this person on the front steps of her house after she'd already refused them entry. That was not a detention.

It sounds to me like they followed her in, but realized that there was no need to restrain or search anything or anybody, which shows good judgment in my opinion, ascertained they were barking up the wrong tree and left.

Barging in, handcuffing people and searching everybody and the house (as I've seen suggested) was not "warranted" or what happened here, and good thing too. Having your house broken into and effectively tied up while your property is ransacked is the tactic of housebreakers and armed robbers, not LE. And I think most Americans would be hard pressed not to fight back to some degree. Bad situation all around.

I think this was tough call all for everyone, and although it is your right to act odd, it doesnt seem to help anyone. I think if it was me, I would have gone outside and locked the door behind me, as I have done in the past. If the police wanted to talk to my underage dependant, they could have done it on the front door step. Pretended not to be home, hanging up, running back into the house just confuses and escalates the situation, and the police act accordingly. What do you think would have been a better outcome, given the facts reported?

[bone1]

I think it would have been better for the family if they never exited the property and told the police to go pound sound. Exiting was a tactical mistake.

Once outside, she should have asked if they were being detained and if she was free to go prior to returning inside. This should have been preceded by telling police she will not answer any questions and they should get off her property.

Mistakes by the homeowner, though legal. That shouldn't justify the unwarranted entry. I don't answer my phone if I dont recognize my number. I hang up on people I don't want to talk to. I close the door and reject unwanted persons from my property. None of that is an invitation into my home. They asked about guns, and she turns to go talk to her husband. Maybe he's the "gun guy" in the house so she's going to get him.

[Flintlock Tom]

I would speculate on three points:
1. That the characterization of the woman "rushing into the house" was made by the officer when he had to justify his actions.
2. That the concept of "officer safety" justifies violating civil rights is a slippery slope that we are well along.
3. If the woman had simply said "we're not talking to you", gone into her house and closed the door, the officer probably would have gotten a search warrant, come back and torn the place apart.

All things considered, it looks to me that things ended fairly well for every one.