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?
OK Hicks wrote:
“Sounds like a good way to harass someone you don’t like, simply call in an argument and vengeance shall be yours.”
~+~
This happens more than many people realize, though it isn’t just to get the police to enter someone’s dwelling, it is yes, to exact revenge by getting the police to exact some form of contact or enforcement.
If the other party was actually guilty of a crime, it is one issue but typically this manifested itself as a neighborhood dispute where the offended party would exaggerate or in some cases lie. This should be dismissed upon an open minded investigation by the authorities. The other which is much more insidious involves some nefarious type calling Child Protective Service and making up some cock and bull story about a parent doing inappropriate things.
If CPS is not in their lazy mode (when they do nothing) they will often yank the child away just as they start the investigation demanding the parent prove they did nothing wrong. This forces the parent into an expensive legal situation and an emotionally troubling time for the child and the parents. It might not be the case in every state, but the CPS I know is one of the worst state agencies around. And, yes, I am biased.
Sounds like a good way to harass someone you don’t like, simply call in an argument and vengeance shall be yours. Especially, if they live alone and there is no second party to be seen.
Unfortunately this is apparently not an isolated incident and is generally a local type abuse that few ever hear about collectively.
What would stop a bunch of less than ethical cops from going around the corner and anonymously calling in a bogus dispute just so they could claim grounds for forcibly entering any residence without a warrant?
What’s next, harassing or arresting people simply on “See something, say something” anonymous hearsay?
Didn’t our ancestors fight a revolution over these same form of tyrannical acts?
I cited my reasoning: the law and the standards therein.
“I think it’s completely reasonable and just to classify this domestic dispute as exigent circumstances.”
Based upon what? Raised tones of voice that could just as easily be attributable to the stress of police harassment?
I’m still willing to let a judge and/or jury decide on that.
As for not coming back? Whatever. My reasoning is based on a lack of objective reasonableness sufficient for the exigent circumstances exception to kick in: the legal standard for permissible warrantless entry. Your “reasoning” is based on “cops are always right” mentality apparently.
Sorry. That’s not how reality works. Cops make mistakes and unless they can produce evidence of exigency, they face trouble in court based on the evidence here.
Cite your reasoning.
I think it’s completely reasonable and just to classify this domestic dispute as exigent circumstances. The video shows a husband and wife still clearly emotional from their recent fight and are now embarrassed that the police have been called. The husband leads as the couple redirects their unresolved emotion unfairly towards the police and feintly claims rights are being violated. Police who are responsible for responding to the ‘domestic disturbance call’, clearly make multiple attempts at communicating from outside the residence. Unable to assess people’s welfare (including children) inside the house and receiving no cooperation from the husband the police choose to force entry into the residence. Once inside uncooperative behavior continues and ultimately the wife is tasered. I will not come back to see your response as the reasoning here only considers the point of view that the police should’ve held onto that there was no one in danger, which is naive in this situation. In all actuality the police did what they should’ve.
Cite your source.
Under California law, the standard is objective reasonableness of injury or imminent injury (the exigent circumstances exception) under People v. Duncan, 42 Cal.3rd 91, 97 (1986).
It just being a DV call isn’t prime facie permission to enter without warrant.
You still need exigent circumstances.
Officers don’t need a warrant to enter on a domestic dispute call, and I’m glad the law doesn’t require one. It’s not a whim as you call it.
Wow, well it’s disturbing that some think the legal standard for warrantless entry and the 4th Amendment is disposable at the whim of the police.
There is no evidence of exigent circumstances here.
The officers broke the law as defined by the relevant case law absent evidence to the contrary.
Wow, well it’s disturbing that popular opinion is so disturbed that officers with the right and obligation to enter on a domestic dispute call would make sure everything’s under control instead of just leaving the scene and trusting what someone says. I’m glad our system is not so naive. When individuals do not understand that they must be in compliance with the officers procedure in this situation when repeatedly told to open the door and submit down, the officers must either taser or possibly wrestle them, because they have already shown that they will resist the officers commands. Tasering is less risky for the INNOCENT officers to gain control of the situation and individuals as it puts the individuals in a limp state rather than risking how the shook up individuals might fight back when touched by the officers.
Darren: Not to pile on, but unless I’ve misread your last post as indicating an evolution of sorts in your position, I think it’s important to pause and consider what may have just happened here. In your prior posts, you seemed comfortable assuming away the evidence that might demonstrate the absence of exigent circumstances (without which the forced entry would violate the 4A). Implicit in your argument was that, like you, the police could be trusted to have respected the citizen’s fundamental constitutional rights when deciding whether to force entry. Now, following some back and forth, you endorse withholding judgment until “all the information” is out in the open. And I think that’s a perfect illustration of why we have the warrant requirement in the first place: in the absence of exigent circumstances, hasty decisions are often wrong, and can lead to horrible results.
OS, Superb. There’s no time for longwinded pontifications on the street. Some just don’t get it. C’est la vie. I’ve had dogs sent @ me and I’ve been shot @ twice. The great Sugar Ray Robinson said when and opponent bragged that he had a plan to beat Ray in the next bout..”Yeah, everbodys got a plan, until they get hit.”
I still believe it would be worthwhile to have all the information that was available to the police before a definitive position is taken as to whether or not the police’s actions were justified.
What James said. When the police get a 10-16 call (domestic disturbance/violence), they have no idea what they are walking into. No matter what was told to the dispatcher, the message over the air is going to be something like, “Unit XXX, 10-16 at 123 Anystreet. Respond Code Three. Any other units in the area respond for backup.”
The first, and preferred, option is to request access to the premises in order to investigate the complaint or reason for the call. If that is done, they will look around, see that everything is OK, fill out their call report form, and leave. If it turns out to be a case of domestic violence or abuse, somebody will go to jail.
If they request access and the resident inside starts screaming or yelling at them, they have no idea what is going on. Mental case? Wife beater? Somebody dead or injured? What? If the occupant continues to resist, one thing is sure to happen. The police WILL enter, one way or the other.
Why? Take a look at powerful advocacy groups such as National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), Women Against Violence (WAV), National Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, and National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women. Then there is the Violence Against Women Act which was just reauthorized earlier this year. Every law enforcement agency–and officer–knows these groups are looking over their shoulder. For a long time, law enforcement turned a blind eye to domestic abuse. That changed in the mid-1990s. Law enforcement agencies were put under the spotlight for not doing anything about it, not arresting abusers, and generally ignoring domestic violence. That still happens way too much, but as Darren said, when laws were passed allowing the state to step in as the “victim” it took the power to sabotage investigations away from the abuser, as well as the victim who has second thoughts and recants out of fear, or perhaps the Stockholm Syndrome.
I said before and I will say it again. Officers are on the front line for stopping abuse and violence against women. It is not a classroom assignment on legal theories of the intricacies of the Fourth Amendment. The officer has seconds to decide what to do. Take it to the bank. The officers WILL COME IN. Try to push, hit or shove an officer and you will be Tazed or sprayed. Make a move toward anything looking like a weapon…..lets put it this way….don’t. Let the lawyers sort out the details later.
I am very sensitive to the problem. Here is a story from one of our local news outlets.
http://www.tricities.com/news/article_266fcd42-e648-5b23-9e8a-059a810aed6d.html
I searched for a link and could not find the 911 call. There’s nothing about anyone being beaten in any of the news stories I’ve seen. Forgive me if I’m not persuaded by your anonymous say so.
Was just outside working on my boat listening to a talk radio show. They played the 911 call then played the audio from this video. They got them both from the web somewhere. Police had every damn right to enter that house.
Love how people will bash away only knowing one side of the story. A lawsuit will go absolutely nowhere, guaranteed. I don’t sit on the internet looking at useless crap. Back to the boat.
Link for 911 call please.
Max-1,
I pulled your lost comment out of the spam filter and approved it.
Micheal, came from another website. It’s not only on this one. The 911 call is posted elsewhere.
@ Max-1 – The police are lucky the home owner didn’t have a gun.
That’s the dumbest thing ever. What do you think would happen if the police responded to a domestic violence call and the homeowner pulled a gun? The police won’t lose that battle. Not a chance. If you take your gun an inch out of your gun cabinet when the cops come knocking, you’re an idiot.
Question still remains, what if there was someone in that house being subdued, seriously injured or on the brink of death and the police just walked away.
“Some one was heard inside that home BEING BEATEN and screaming from a neighbor.” (emphasis added)
No, you’re wrong. There’s nothing anywhere that says a neighbor heard someone being beaten in that house. You’re just making stuff up now!
What if Bigfoot was hiding in the garage?
What if stewed prunes tasted a lot more like applesauce than rhubarb does?
What if supposition carried more weight than the legal standard of objective evidence of exigent circumstance?
Ooo. “What if” is fun. I could play that all day.