from the domicile-made-furtive-movements dept
Five years ago, an Idaho police department destroyed a woman's house to end a standoff with her dog. The Caldwell PD -- after having been given permission (along with a house key) to enter the home to see if a suspect was in the home -- decided this meant the Shaniz West had given them permission to fire grenade after tear gas grenade into the house before sending in the SWAT team to confront the family dog.
Exhibit A:
Shaniz West sued, stating that this 10-hour "standoff" that rendered her house uninhabitable for three months was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court agreed, finding the officers being sued could be held accountable for destroying her home, rather than just using the house key she had given them.
Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and granted the officers qualified immunity. According to the Appeals Court [PDF], this was an appropriate use of police force, given the circumstances. Mainly it was that the circumstances were unique enough, the court could find no way to say this was unreasonable. Without controlling precedent, the officers were allowed to escape the consequences of their ridiculous, house-destroying actions.
Here's the Court's summary, which sounds like it was written by a cop PR shop.
The panel held that assuming the consent was voluntary and defendants exceeded the scope of the consent by shooting tear gas into the house, they were still entitled to qualified immunity. The panel held that given that defendants thought they had permission to enter plaintiffs house to apprehend a dangerous, potentially armed, and suicidal felon barricaded inside, it was not obvious, in the absence of a controlling precedent, that defendants exceeded the scope of plaintiffs consent by causing the tear gas canisters to enter the house in an attempt to flush the suspect out into the open. Officers Seevers and Winefield were therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.
"Causing tear gas canisters to enter the house." It's like the canisters were just hanging around outside and the SWAT team's reasonable appearance on the lawn gave the canisters permission to hurtle themselves through the nearest windows and doors.
There was no suspect to flush out. The person they were seeking had vacated the residence before officers stopped Shaniz West and threatened her with arrest if she didn't "consent" to a search of her house. What West actually consented to was far different than what the officers ended up doing, as the dissent pointed out.
The majority adopts an entirely implausible contrary reading of Wests consent, one a typical reasonable person [would not] have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect. Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251. Because West never expressed a limitation as to time, place within the house, or manner of entry, the majority concludes that her consent that officers could get inside permitted a violent initial attack on her house with toxic objects. Maj. Op. at 13. In so concluding, the majority supposes that someone who permits law enforcement officers to get inside [her] house while handing over a key consents to the officers not entering the house but instead lobbing dangerous objects, such as tear gas canistersor stones or bombs, for other examplesinto the house from the outside. It further presupposes that, in providing consent to entry, a resident must preemptively forbid actions no one would guess are contemplated by the commonsense understanding of the articulated consent. That is not the law.
What this court finds reasonable for officers (destroying a house) does not align with what any "reasonable" non-cop would willingly permit when consenting to a search of their residence.
In concluding that the officers performed a search consistent with Wests consent, the majority does what no court has beforeit holds that a typical reasonable person consenting to an entry to look for a suspect could be understood by a competent police officer as consenting to damage to his or her home so extreme that renders it uninhabitable for months.
There is still no finding that destroying a house while performing a consensual search is a violation of rights. The Ninth punted on drawing the line following this case, leaving officers free to "cause canisters to enter" houses in the future when performing searches for suspects.
The Institute for Justice wants some precedent set. It's asking the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. The petition [PDF] seeks a ruling that would prevent officers from dodging lawsuits from citizens rendered homeless by consensual searches.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether an officer who has consent to get inside a house but instead destroys it from the outside is entitled to qualified immunity in the absence of precisely factually on-point caselaw.
It's a valid question. It's far more valid than the Ninth's conclusion: that consent to search is consent to destruction. Even given the circumstances of this case -- a potentially armed felon who was supposedly suicidal -- the officers had options they normally didn't have during warrant service: specifically, permission to enter the home and a key that unlocked the front and back doors.
Instead of using the key to enter the house (or at least attempt to -- the front door also had a chain securing it, but it's not like a bunch of tear gas grenades were going to dislodge the chain), the cops decided to call in the SWAT team. They left the premises, met with the SWAT team, came up with a plan and did a couple of dry runs and three hours later, decided to start the "search."
It wasn't until 4.5 hours later the key was even tried. It unlocked the back door, but redundantly because the glass had already been shattered by tear gas canisters, allowing officers to reach inside and unlock the door.
As the petition points out, there's no reason to find precedent that directly aligns with law enforcement's actions here. It should have been plainly apparent to the officers that their actions were unreasonable.
The dissent did not purport to find a closely similar case[ ] to guide the clearly established law inquiry[.] App. 27. Instead, it found no such case was necessary because any competent officer would have understood he could not lawfully destroy a house simply because he had consent to enter it.
This should be obvious. If it were a car being searched, a person's consent to a search would not justify officers towing the vehicle to place away from the public and detonating it just because of the slim possibility something inside it might pose a threat to officers.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take a look at this case, rather than decide it's up to the lower court to set a bunch of conflicting precedent -- or far more likely, continue kicking the QI can down the road. Giving officers permission to search your house should never mean giving them permission to leave you with no place to live.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, consent, destruction, idaho, search, shaniz west, supreme court, swat, swat teams
See the article here:
- Quinn: Supreme Court should clarify Fourth Amendment rights in the digital age - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Fourth amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ... - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment is destroyed by the Roberts led Supreme Court. - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Protections for e-data clear Senate committee - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- Weighing The Risks Of Warrantless Phone Searches During Arrests - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Court may let cops search smartphones - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Supreme Court to hear case on police searches of cellphones - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment in the digital age: Supreme Court to decide if police can search cellphones without a warrant - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- What Scalia knows about illegal searches - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- Should police be allowed to search your smartphone - Video - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- The Shaky Legal Foundation of NSA Surveillance on Americans - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules police don't need warrants to search cars - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Local police: Updated vehicle-search law still requires probable cause - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Liberal Supreme Court Justice Comes To The Defense Of Scalia - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Smartphones and the Fourth Amendment - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment Defined & Explained - Law - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- I-Team: Do police seek search warrant friendly judges? - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Is Big Brother Listening? Applying the Fourth Amendment in an Electronic Age - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- Magistrate waxes poetic while rejecting Gmail search request - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- License reader lawsuit can be heard, appeals court rules - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Seize the Rojo - Video - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- NSA Spying Has a Disproportionate Effect on Immigrants - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Motorists sue Aurora, police in 2012 traffic stop after bank robbery - May 18th, 2014 [May 18th, 2014]
- Judge Says NSA Phone Surveillance Likely Unconstitutional - Video - May 21st, 2014 [May 21st, 2014]
- New York Attorney Heath D. Harte Releases a Statement on Fourth Amendment Rights - May 22nd, 2014 [May 22nd, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment Rights - Video - May 23rd, 2014 [May 23rd, 2014]
- Bangor Area School District teachers vote no to random drug - May 24th, 2014 [May 24th, 2014]
- I Don't Care About The Contitution, Take Your Fourth Amendment And Shove It The Hills Hotel - Video - May 27th, 2014 [May 27th, 2014]
- Lonestar1776 at Illegal Checkpoint 80 Miles Inside Border - Standing UP & Pushing Back! pt 2/2 - Video - August 31st, 2014 [August 31st, 2014]
- Suit charges Daytona Beach's rental inspection program violates civil rights - September 3rd, 2014 [September 3rd, 2014]
- 4th Amendment - Laws.com - September 4th, 2014 [September 4th, 2014]
- YOU CAN ARREST ME NOW (cops refuse, steal phone) - Video - September 7th, 2014 [September 7th, 2014]
- The Feds Explain How They Seized The Silk Road Servers - September 8th, 2014 [September 8th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Does obtaining leaked data from a misconfigured website violate the CFAA? - September 9th, 2014 [September 9th, 2014]
- Defence asks judge in NYC to toss out bulk of evidence in Silk Road case as illegally obtained - September 10th, 2014 [September 10th, 2014]
- Family of a mentally ill woman files lawsuit against San Mateo Co. after deadly shooting - September 10th, 2014 [September 10th, 2014]
- Minnesota Supreme Court upholds airport drug case decision - September 12th, 2014 [September 12th, 2014]
- Law Talk - Obamacare Rollout; Fourth Amendment, NSA Spying Stop & Frisk DUI Check Points lta041 - Video - September 12th, 2014 [September 12th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: The posse comitatus case and changing views of the exclusionary rule - September 15th, 2014 [September 15th, 2014]
- Guest: Why the privacy of a public employees cellphone matters - September 16th, 2014 [September 16th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Apples dangerous game - September 19th, 2014 [September 19th, 2014]
- Judge expounds on privacy rights - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Great privacy essay: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment By Maison Erdman - Video - September 20th, 2014 [September 20th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: When administrative inspections of businesses turn into massive armed police raids - September 22nd, 2014 [September 22nd, 2014]
- The chilling loophole that lets police stop, question and search you for no good reason - September 23rd, 2014 [September 23rd, 2014]
- Pet Owners Look to Muzzle Police Who Shoot Dogs - September 27th, 2014 [September 27th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: A few thoughts on Heien v. North Carolina - September 29th, 2014 [September 29th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit on the mosaic theory and Smith v. Maryland - October 1st, 2014 [October 1st, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Third Circuit gives narrow reading to exclusionary rule - October 2nd, 2014 [October 2nd, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Supreme Court takes case on duration of traffic stops - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure, Racial Bias: The American Law Journal on the Philadelphia CNN-News Affiliate WFMZ Monday, October 6 ... - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Argument preview: How many brake lights need to be working on your car? - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- The 'Barney Fife Loophole' to the Fourth Amendment - October 3rd, 2014 [October 3rd, 2014]
- Search & Seizure: A New Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Promo - Video - October 4th, 2014 [October 4th, 2014]
- Ap Government Fourth Amendment Project - Video - October 4th, 2014 [October 4th, 2014]
- Lubbock Liberty Workshop With Arnold Loewy On The Fourth Amendment - Video - October 5th, 2014 [October 5th, 2014]
- Feds Hacked Silk Road Without A Warrant? Perfectly Legal, Prosecutors Argue - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Starts Term with Fourth Amendment Case - October 7th, 2014 [October 7th, 2014]
- Argument analysis: A simple answer to a deceptively simple Fourth Amendment question? - October 9th, 2014 [October 9th, 2014]
- Feds Say That Even If FBI Hacked The Silk Road, Ulbricht's Rights Weren't Violated - October 9th, 2014 [October 9th, 2014]
- Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates the Fourth Amendment - Video - October 9th, 2014 [October 9th, 2014]
- Leggett sides with civil liberties supporters - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Search & Seizure / Car Stops: A 'New' Fourth Amendment for a New Generation? - Video - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- The Fourth Amendment- The Maininator Period 4 - Video - October 10th, 2014 [October 10th, 2014]
- Judge nukes Ulbricht's complaint about WARRANTLESS FBI Silk Road server raid - October 11th, 2014 [October 11th, 2014]
- Montgomery County will not hold immigrants without probable cause -- Gazette.Net - October 13th, 2014 [October 13th, 2014]
- Debate: Does Mass Phone Data Collection Violate The 4th Amendment? - October 14th, 2014 [October 14th, 2014]
- Does the mass collection of phone records violate the Fourth Amendment? - October 19th, 2014 [October 19th, 2014]
- When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer? - October 21st, 2014 [October 21st, 2014]
- Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants - October 22nd, 2014 [October 22nd, 2014]
- Third Circuit Allows Evidence from Warrantless GPS Device - October 22nd, 2014 [October 22nd, 2014]
- US court rules in favor of providing officials access to entire email account - October 24th, 2014 [October 24th, 2014]
- EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT - Video - October 25th, 2014 [October 25th, 2014]
- FBI demands new powers to hack into computers and carry out surveillance - October 30th, 2014 [October 30th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment (United States Constitution ... - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Fourth Amendment - Video - November 4th, 2014 [November 4th, 2014]
- Call Yourself a Hacker and Lose Fourth Amendment Rights - Video - November 5th, 2014 [November 5th, 2014]
- Volokh Conspiracy: Magistrate issues arrest warrants for 17 years but is new to probable cause - November 7th, 2014 [November 7th, 2014]