This video shows a confrontation between a couple in Cotati, California and police after the police were called to investigate a domestic violence complaint. The couple tells the police that they were simply yelling in an argument and refused to allow the police to enter without a warrant. The police respond by kicking down the door and tasering the couple.
In defense of the police, it is not clear if they can actually see the couple, particularly the wife. In a case of possible domestic abuse, police need to see the occupants to ensure that someone is not being or has been beaten. If the police were to simply leave based on verbal responses, there could be a victim found later who was unable to break free or seek help. I can understand the reluctance of the police to leave the scene without a visual on the couple. However, they could have sought a telephonic warrant.
Despite the compelling concern over the safety of occupants, there remains the question of whether the police can break down the door based on what they have been told and more importantly whether tasering was necessary simply because the couple was refusing to lay on the ground.
Police can enter a home without a warrant under “exigent circumstances” where there is a reasonable belief that there is an immediate need to protect their lives or the lives of others. Here the couple both respond to the police and demand a warrant as a precondition for entry. There is no allegation of a report of actual violence as opposed to yelling. The police are clearly suggesting that the suspicious conduct led them to be concerned for the safety of the couple, particularly the woman.
The police demand to know why the couple will not come out, though citizens are allowed to remain in their homes absent a lawful demand to exit the home. The woman is tased first and then the man. I fail to see the reasonable basis for the taser. They are clearly not obeying commands but they do not appear to be threatening the officers. As we have discussed before, tasers appear to be used increasingly in response to citizens who simply do not follow the orders of police.
What do you think about the entry and force shown in this video?
Ah yes, excuse the perps and blame the victims — says Mr. Voice of
Reason (sic).
D.S. — was your LE experience in China, Roosia, or N.Korea?
You sound like your kind of attitude would be welcome in LE of any of ’em.
With the limited information I have, the video and the article in the Press Democrat, this is what I see.
There is no evidence to suggest the woman was tased. The newspaper article did not mention this and the video does not show this happening. The first taser deployment was to the man. That is clear, the woman was still standing being held by one of the officers. She did scream as the man was tased. The taser darts did not fully contact him as evidenced by the rapid ticking sound. It is possible another taser was deployed by another officer against the man but it is not conclusive to me at this point. After the initial taser deployment it seems that another jolt or another deployment incapacitates the man as evidenced by the vocalizations he is making.
A neighbor made the 911 call to report a loud argument between two and a woman crying. There was also another adult in the home along with a child somewhere inside and a child in the back yard.
It is a frequent event where a DV call is made and one of the two persons is in distress and is coerced into obeying the directions of the primary aggressor. It is also a frequent, though slightly lesser, event for one of the persons to defend the other after much abuse. It is also common for DV suspects to attempt to prevent the police from coming in. It is common for DV suspects and, although rarely, DV victoms to assault law enforcement officers in the course of a DV investigation, especially when they are aggressive verbally and non-compliant with orders. It is uncommon, though it does happen, there are unknown third persons who are victims in the house that the officers or 911 dispatch does not know about.
As for the legal issues. Most states have enacted DV laws that make the state the victim of the crime and not just the injured party. The reason for this is, as described in the preceeding paragraph, the victim often does not press charges for various reasons and then, even during the same day, the assault happens again. I have worked LE before and after this change, the law is necessary due to the nature of domestic violence victimization. Here the state takes interest in the exigency of verifying that there was no DV. Exigent circumstances are likely to have been present, for one there was no verfication to the officers that the child inside was not injured. Also, the officers do not know if the woman or someone else is being coerced by one of the actors, the officers do not know if the actors are possessing weapons that are readily available to the suspects and can be used on victims or other officers.
Also, some might say “well the two said there was no DV and therefore the police should have left.” You have to understand the mindseat of the DV suspect. They usually lie about the welfare of the other party. Also, there could be other suspects / aggressors in the room. The courts allow a protective sweep of the house once inside to see if there are hidden suspects and to ascertain if there are no victims.
For the telephonic search warrant. Know that it often takes half an hour for a telephonic search warrant to be issued. If there is a wounded victim inside that person has to wait for help and that wait might be too long. Plus, in that amount of time what can happen to the victim at the hands of the suspect? THis is not just a case of a fugative hiding alone in his house. There could be injured people. How are the police to know if this was the case or not, especially given the hostility of this person.
Also know that a significant number maybe even half of DV calls are reported as the result of others hearing violence or arguing. Violence is often coupled with aggressive yelling and crying by one of the victims. Also a significant number of LEO deaths occur during DV calls.
Also, there is no information in the press report or the video of what the man was doing prior to the tasing. He could have been making furative movements and he could have been tring to grab the woman. The news report indicates he was moving toward the officer. I would consider his moves to be bordering on aggression. Everyone really needs to review the investigation case file to have a better understanding on whether it was proper or not.
In my view, from the limited info I have, the police were justified in entering the dwelling as permitted by state law. The tasing, there is not sufficient information to make a conclusion. I would lean toward it will be called excusable, personally I would not have deployed the taser at that time but many officers would have.
You are absolutely right but we must also have checks and balances. Research, research, RESEARCH!
T Y R A N N Y
“What do you think about the entry and force shown in this video?”
It’s not the least bit surprising to see a street gang violate people’s homes to commit crimes. The problem is, there is next to no legal recourse for taking action against such criminals as they are “protected” by a corrupt “legal system”.
“If you don’t like this outcome then demand laws that prevent it . . . .”
There already is such a law. Here’s its text: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These cops violated the law by busting the door down and invading their home. Since they didn’t have a warrant, they needed a reasonable belief of an immediate need to protect the lives of others. A report only of shouting inside a house plus both the husband and wife telling cops that everyone is okay does not meet the required standard. It’s disgraceful that anyone calling themselves a civil libertarian would excuse this violent government home invasion. The tazing appears to be for nothing other than asserting their rights and not obeying the cops, but it’s possible they did something not shown on video so I’ll reserve judgment on that.
move on people, nothing to see here…
“It is always better to comply with the police”
No. It’s not. That’s the opinion of someone trained in the legalities surrounding the 4th and 5th Amendments.
It is always better to comply with the police, ask them questions politely, and if there is an issue, respectfully tell them that you will not resist them, but that you are invoking your rights. Complying “under protest” is always better…as soon as you give the cops any resistance, they will usually act swiftly and aggressively…and they will usually be cleared as following “department policy”.
The couple could was in the wrong for not complying to the police request to make sure they are alright…it is obvious that the cops were having trouble seeing through the screen door.
The cops were wrong by tasing the individuals, and honestly, they should be charged with assault and battery. I have no problem with cops checking out a domestic violence situation to their satisfaction (and immediately leaving once it is shown that there has been no crime committed); however, I have no tolerance for blatant use of force without justification. If there were more consequences for cops when they go overboard on force, then this would stop occuring so much.
This is the opinion of someone who has respects professional police officers who do their job, but also believes in the rights of citizens.
Improper training is the problem of many city police and sheriff personnel. The people must stay vigilant of abuse of power. The same in our ADMINISTRATION and many public employees.
Every home in that town ought to have a trap door just inside the front door. When the igPays come in, hit the button and put them in the basement with the alligators.
We need to follow this up and see if the tasered homeowners find a lawyer that knows his way to the library and can look up the large volumes of “How To Sue” under Section 1983. That may be difficult in California as i hear hat most lawyers did not like Con Law 101 and dont know nuthin bout birthin babies when it comes to civil rights litigation.
“Had the cops left & someone ended up beaten to death a lot of the same people screaming about police state would be screaming about careless/indifferent cops.”
Not really. Their duty ended once they saw both parties, neither were hurt and neither expressed a desire to press charges. It’s not against the law to argue – even loudly – with your SO. If the situation got out of hand later? That is filed under the category of “things happen” so long as the cops had previously followed proper verification procedures.
“I don’t like this outcome but it is the logical result of demanding evidence that there is no domestic violence happening.”
The cops spoke to both parties before being denied entry without a warrant, Frankly. At that point, they should have left and filed an incident report, not break in and commit battery by taser and violate the couple’s rights.
Bad cops are bad cops. These guys screwed up royally.
Had the cops left & someone ended up beaten to death a lot of the same people screaming about police state would be screaming about careless/indifferent cops. They certainly didn’t help but the escalation started with the home owners.
We have put the police into a can’t win situation where even when they are wrong they are unwilling to admit it of try to correct it because they will be wrong the next time when they do what you wanted them to do in this case.
I don’t like this outcome but it is the logical result of demanding evidence that there is no domestic violence happening. If you don’t like this outcome then demand laws that prevent it . . . but be aware that unless you have some genius here to fore unknown solution you will be putting humans at risk of additional violence from their SO
MCJ:
The invocation of one’s 4A rights does not constitute grounds for law enforcement to infer criminal activity, nor the existence of exigent circumstances justifying a forced intrusion into the home in the absence of a search warrant. You’re making this way harder than it has to be, and you’re also squandering the 4A’s requirement that the cops’ suspicions be vetted by a co-equal branch of government (i.e., the judiciary) before intrusion into the home–which the 4A considers sacred.
One wrong leads to two wrongs = all wrong and all of it unnecessary.
A call of possible domestic abuse occurring.
(Does anyone really need the data repeated here on severe injuries and even deaths as a result of domestic abuse? Or does anyone fail to remember the uproar and severe and justifiable complaints about police failures to respond appropriately to domestic dispute calls and the changes that were put into place to try to ensure (at least improve the chances that) women (mainly) did not continue to get the crap beat out of them or killed because of an inadequate police response.
It seems the police did have a reasonable suspicion (responding to a call like they would of say a bank robbery or hostage situation or a fight) and a corresponding duty to investigate. And when they arrived at the home they had a duty to investigate to see if domestic abuse had occurred or was occurring which include being able to view clearly and closely both of the parties to look for signs of assault (injury). From where they were outside the house it seems they reasonable they could not really do this nor could they assess the situation with any degree of confidence.
The people in the house clearly acted in a way that impeded the police officers’ ability to investigate and therefore obstructed the officers in the lawful performance of their duty.
I believe it was correct for the officers to force entry when they were refused voluntary entry.
I believe it was correct and lawful for the officers to take control of the situation in the house involving securing all parties to ensure not only their own safety, but also the safety of either possible victim, man and woman.
Who has not seen the “cops” type videos of further assault/injury being inflicted on a victim by the aggressor even while the police were there because both had not been “neutralized,” preferable by being handcuffed and separated while the police conducted their investigation.
All that notwithstanding, it does seem from the video shown that it is not clear why the two had to be tased rather than cuffed. It is possible they were tased simply for yapping like couple of a**holes and a refusal to shut the f**k up which rather than for behavior and a refusal to comply with a lawful police order which, absent actual threatening behavior is wrong.
Although loud persistent yapping at the officers at close range might actually impede the officers in performing their lawful duty to investigate.
That’s where cuffing, inspection for injuries, and questioning separately would probably be the next appropriate step.
Followed by arrest for obstruction if one or both continued to impede the on-scene investigation.
The tasing seemed to be wrong based on the video, but not the rest of it.
What should have happened is that the couple really should have opened the door, allowed the officers to view them clearly, respond to reasonable questions aimed at determining if anyone was being subjected to domestic violence, in other words that everyone was safe, and they would have resolved the situation reasonably, honorably and safely.
Too bad.
I’m with the police on this, except, based at least on what I cold see, the tase.
I sed how the police are required to assure no one is being injured and assure that no one inside is in need of medical attention. Still, I think they went a little far and the tasing seems to be extreme. Of course no action will be taken against the officers as you know it will be investigated in-house and be found within the policy of the department. Of course.
A taser is a deadly weapon because it is known to kill. The Law Enforcement Offender can not justify using it because of what the manufacturer claims. Experience in the past, published on the national news shows that tasers kill– early and often. When litigating the federal civil rights suit depose the Chief of Police along with his wife. When the Chief says that tasers are hamrless (have the video camera going) state that you are going to taser his wife to show that he is correct. When he objects get him to espouse reasons (no pun intended). Bring the taser to the trial and do an in court demonstration. Subpoena in the manufacturer– President of Taser US would be good and offer to tase him in front of the jury. Bring in the splintered door to trial as an exhibit. Everyone on the jury will have a front door of their own. Argue in closing argument, as you hold up the pieces of the door, that all that stands between you (point at the jury) and death by taser is a slim door. ” I suggest you buy a steel one if you live in the same town as these thugs who are truly Law Enforcement Offenders. Send a message to Leos everywhere and award a large punitive damage award here.”
I see
They can probably get a good jury in California. Officers acting under collor of state law assault and battery with a deadly weapon in violation of 42 United States Code section 1983. Sue the municipality and the superior officers. Punitive damages against the cops on scene, their superiors and the Chief. Can not get puns vs. the muni. Attorneys fees at a high hourly rate. I would expect a rounded down figure of $1.5 million if you can find a lwayer out there who has skills beyond divorces and bankruptcy.