Saturday, October 6, 2012

Tenth Circuit Storey v. Taylor 11-2180

Decision here.

   This is a long one, but it touches on a lot of important issues.  I'd suggest reading the actual decision.

   Taylor was a cop in Los Lunas, NM who responded to a call of a domestic at Storey's house.  The call was from an anonymous neighbor (which should set off big red flags.  We all know that anonymous complaints are next to worthless), and alleged only a loud argument (red flag #2: that's not necessarily a crime and doesn't support much of a safety argument).  The cops showed up, and didn't hear any disturbance (#3).

   Taylor knocked on the door, and Storey answered.  After being ordered to talk (sigh...), Storey admitted to being in an argument with his wife, who he said was no longer present (and she wasn't.  She returned while the officers were speaking to Taylor.  They would have seen her drive into an attached garage, and there was nothing about her appearance which suggested she was endangered.  The police didn't talk to her until after the call went wrong, though).  At some point, Taylor ordered Storey to step out of the house, and Storey refused.  Storey asserted that he had a right to stay in his house, Taylor ordered him to step outside or be arrested, and after they went back and forth a bit Storey found himself in the front yard in handcuffs.  He was charged with resisting.

   Anybody here think this sounds good?  Give yourself ten demerits. 

   Storey sued Taylor, who tried to invoke qualified immunity.  Storey's argument is that his arrest out of his home violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not justified by exigent circumstances or a warrant.  Taylor argues that the arrest was justified either by exigent circumstances or by the community caretaker exception   The case made its way to the Tenth, and here we are.  The Court recognized some crucial points from previous case law:

   In order to justify a warrantless entry into a home, the police need one of two things: either consent (clearly lacking in this case), or exigent circumstances.  In order to make entry into a home to either detain or arrest someone, the police need exigent circumstances and probable cause (not reasonable suspicion, probable cause.  The home is a big deal to the Fourth Amendment).  Probable cause exists where "a substantial probability existed that the suspect committed the crime, requiring something more than a bare suspicion."  In order to establish exigent circumstances (particularly as they relate to a danger of injury), the police need to show that they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe there is an immediate need to protect the lives or safety of themselves or others, and that the manner and scope of their search is reasonable.  

   That leaves community caretaking... the courts have recognized that police actions don't always fall under the normal umbrella of criminal investigation.  Sometimes they are justified by functions wholly separate and apart from detecting, investigating, or acquiring evidence of a crime.  That can include giving people rides, towing abandoned cars, and restraining drunks.  In order to detain someone based on the community caretaking exception, the police have to show that their actions are based on specific, articulable facts which justify the intrusion into someone's liberty, that the governmental interest at issue outweighs the person's interest in liberty from arbitrary government action, and that the detention is no longer than necessary and specifically tailored to the facts which justified it.

   The court also sees fit to mention that ordering someone to step out of their house does, in fact, count as a Fourth Amendment seizure.  Has to be said.  

   Now, applying all that to the facts of this case: we have an anonymous complaint that wouldn't have justified entry into the house even if it were more credible.  The police find nothing suspicious, and during their investigation they don't learn anything aggravating about the circumstances.  There's no evidence of a crime.  There are no facts which suggest that anyone was endangered, or that the police had any pressing need to do anything at all.  Nothing in this case justified police intrusion into the house (either physically or by giving orders to come outside).  Furthermore, all of the legal contours of this decision were already clearly established.  Taylor's request for qualified immunity was denied.

No comments:

Post a Comment