Latest 4th Amendment US SC case

[steveyc272]

Michigan v. Jeremy Fisher
United States Supreme Court No. 09-91
Decided: December 7, 2009


The United States Supreme Court issued a per curium decision today on a Fourth Amendment case. The case arising out of Michigan involved two police officers accused of violating the Fourth Amendment by making a warrantless entry into a home. The officers who were responding to a complaint about a “crazy man” in a house arrived on the scene and observed a damaged pick up truck in the driveway, a damaged fence, three broken house windows, blood stains on the front of the truck and bloodied clothing out side the house. As the officers approached the house they could see the defendant screaming and throwing things inside the house.

The defendant had locked the back door and placed a couch in front of the front door to prevent entry into his house. At the door the officers also noticed that the defendant’s hand was bleeding and asked him if he needed medical attention and asked him to let them in. The defendant responded that he was fine and demanded that they get a search warrant if they wanted to enter his house.

The officers then pushed the front door in and observed the defendant holding a gun. The defendant was arrested for assault with a dangerous weapon.

The Michigan Court of Appeals believed that the officer’s actions were not justifiable enough to have entered the home of Fisher. They concluded that the drops of blood did not validate a serious, life-threatening injury and being that Fisher was upright and conscious; he could have tended to his own needs. A motion to suppress the evidence was granted.

The Supreme Court ruled that it was error for the Michigan Court of Appeals to replace that objective inquiry into appearances with its hindsight determination that there was in fact no emergency. [Quoting the per curium author]

"It does not meet the needs of law enforcement or the demands of public safety to require officers to walk away from a situation like the one they encountered here. Only when an apparent threat has become an actual harm can officers rule out innocuous explanations for ominous circumstances."

The opinion went on to say that it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that an emergency aid exception to the Forth Amendment was called for and thus reversed and remanded the Michigan Court of Appeals.

From the ABA

Full case at: www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-91.pdf

The opinion gives a much better rationale for the decision than the abstract above. I'd have to agree that the police had the right to enter the premise. It would appear that a reasonable police officer may believe that either Fisher was seriously injured or that someone else in the house was in imminent danger, more likely the latter. I know I wouldn't point a firearm at LEO if they entered my house, regardless if I objected to their entrance. He's lucky to be alive.

 

[NHAtHeart]

From the ABA

Full case at: www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-91.pdf

The opinion gives a much better rationale for the decision than the abstract above. I'd have to agree that the police had the right to enter the premise. It would appear that a reasonable police officer may believe that either Fisher was seriously injured or that someone else in the house was in imminent danger, more likely the latter. I know I wouldn't point a firearm at LEO if they entered my house, regardless if I objected to their entrance. He's lucky to be alive.

I guess that's a hard one to swallow if the LEO isn't there legally, granted in this circumstance there was a fair amount of reason for the officers to suspect something was up. But say they got the wrong address for a search warrant and busted into your house when it was supposed to be the drug dealer next door. I would never want to fire upon a LEO for an honest mistake and wouldn't want them shooting me for the same mistake but I would be a bit hard pressed to not fire upon someone entering my residence illegally be it LEO or criminal, I know I haven't done anything to warrant them storming my apartment so therefore if they did I'd be trying to defend my home.

 

[steveyc272]

Agreed, but the difference here is that it appears that Fisher knew it was LEO entering - it was not a mistake. However, this aspect has not been litigated yet so one can't say with certainty.

 

[firestorm]

Yeah, a LEO who had been specifically told No, you may not enter without a warrant. If he was able to tell them that, and was able to deal with his own wounds. they had no reason to enter citing first aid that he obviously didnt want. Property rights dont end because you cut your hand.

 

[Jose]

F-ing great. More license for police to use the flimsiest of excuses to violate others' property and privacy.

 

[Scrivener]

I think the truck, fence and post had something to do with this decision.

 

[Half Cocked]

I think the truck, fence and post had something to do with this decision.

Correct.... nothing earth shattering with this decision.

 

[Half Cocked]

they had no reason to enter citing first aid that he obviously didnt want. Property rights dont end because you cut your hand.

Apparently the SJC just ruled otherwise....

 

[jasons]

Just asking here, but how were the cops supposed to know it was actually his house? Broken windows and blood all over the place sounds like it at least could B&E gone wrong.

 

[Scrivener]

Apparently the SJC just ruled otherwise....

Far worse than that. It was a SCOTUS case.

 

[Half Cocked]

Far worse than that. It was a SCOTUS case.