reply to post by sdcigarpig
sdcigarpig -
Read up a few posts and I give the break down of what happened straight from the Court's opinion.
The police were called by the wife, after she attempted to call her sister. The dispute was not in the public eye initially, but became so once the
husband was outside carrying a 'brown bag'.
Notably, after an argument with a spouse, it should be known to the officers who respond that tempers are flared and things are heated. The 9-11 call
made gave no indication of violence, but the operator who took the call classified it as "domestic dispute".
Outside is where the officer confronted the husband and things escalated but at that point the officer did a fairly good job and explained to him that
he needed to calm down.
The wife than came outside and threw a bag in the direction of the husband and told him to get the rest of his stuff. Which I take as an invitation
to the husband to come back inside and get your crap before I sell it on ebay! The husband than went back inside and it was then that the officer,
without explicit consent from either the husband or even the wife forced their way into the home.
In my view, they should have kept the couple outside when they were both there to sort out the situation and the problem could have been solved with
no charges to the husband at all. Instead, the officers allowed the parties to go back into their private residence creating the situation presented
in the case.
The officer has ample amount of opportunity to determine the level of 'domestic dispute' occurring but failed at the opportunities to handle it.
The courts here are took that opportunity presented to nullify common-law practices in regards to lawfully resisting an officer from unwarranted
entry.
If someone barged into my home, without my consent you can bet the farm I would put them against the wall and probably more. Regardless of the fact
he was an officer, it was all poorly handled. I am really surprised that the defense didn't address this in the original jury trial that the
situation could have been handled outside, when both parties were present.
The court failed to protect the citizen's Fourth Amendment rights and the officers failed at handling the issue when it would have been easily
handled.
