WI court: 4th amendment? What 4th amendment?

[Jimmy Higgins]

nevermind

 

[dismal]

Yeah, his mistake was letting them in at all.

Also, having a bloody brawl that spills outside from where you have your grow operation is not recommended.

 

[SimpleDon]

It would apply in places where there was no reason to suspect anything, but hasn't it always been a fine line? But we'll see if the Supreme Court rules on this.

Like this case. The victims of the attack was known to not be in any danger. There was absolutely no reason to suspect any one else was in danger. It isn't as if the brother said his brother attacked him and someone else could still be trapped in the home.

Yes, the community caretaker exception is specifically for situations where no one is under investigation and there is no suspicion that a crime has been committed. The SCOTUS case that produced the ruling establishing the exception was specifically limited to vehicles.

The case involved a LEO from another state whose car was disabled. The car was towed to the police impound as courtesy to the out of state officer. But the impound was full so that the car was left outside in a publicly accessible area. It dawned on them that the officer was probably traveling with his service weapon. Fearing that someone could steal the weapon they searched for it and found evidence that the officer had committed a murder.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I thought you conservatives were all gung-ho on law enforcement.

How can something be "law" enforcement when it is breaking the law?

I'm not the conservative, don't ask me.

 

[James Madison]

This "people may be in danger" exception to the 4th Amendment is not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

This is correct. However, the issue here is whether this exception was applicable under these facts. Some in this thread have made the argument the facts of this case did not create the exigency of someone was inside the closet in need of aid.

 

[dismal]

This "people may be in danger" exception to the 4th Amendment is not a new thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance

This is correct. However, the issue here is whether this exception was applicable under these facts. Some in this thread have made the argument the facts of this case did not create the exigency of someone was inside the closet in need of aid.

Yes, OK. The very nature of an exigent circumstances test is that it will be subjective and dependent on the facts of the case.

 

[James Madison]

This is correct. However, the issue here is whether this exception was applicable under these facts. Some in this thread have made the argument the facts of this case did not create the exigency of someone was inside the closet in need of aid.

Yes, OK. The very nature of an exigent circumstances test is that it will be subjective and dependent on the facts of the case.

I disagree with your characterization of exigent circumstances as "subjective." However, whether an exigent circumstance was present is contingent upon the facts of the case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, OK. The very nature of an exigent circumstances test is that it will be subjective and dependent on the facts of the case.

I disagree with your characterization of exigent circumstances as "subjective." However, whether an exigent circumstance was present is contingent upon the facts of the case.

Based on the Court of Appeals case, it appears they would need a new exception. Their standard (at least one plank of their three plank requirement) is that the officer(s) must know with a high level of certainty that there is 1) a person and 2) in danger. Neither existed in this case.

 

[James Madison]

I disagree with your characterization of exigent circumstances as "subjective." However, whether an exigent circumstance was present is contingent upon the facts of the case.

Based on the Court of Appeals case, it appears they would need a new exception. Their standard (at least one plank of their three plank requirement) is that the officer(s) must know with a high level of certainty that there is 1) a person and 2) in danger. Neither existed in this case.

Well, not quite. First, the state Supreme Court and lower appellate court invoked and relied upon the same legal standard of "when under the totality of the
circumstances an objectively reasonable basis for the community caretaker function is shown..." The disagreement between the state Supreme Court and the lower appellate court was whether the facts of the case satisfied the "objectively reasonable basis" standard. The state Supreme Court explicitly mentioned this disagreement.

"The State has shown "an objectively reasonable basis for the community caretaker function." Kramer, 315 Wis. 2d 414. Although the court of appeals stated that "[a] mere possibility that another person may be injured without any other evidence that concretely points to the possibility that a member of the public required assistance does not meet the more demanding objective reasonable basis standard," Matalonis, unpublished slip op., ¶25 (citation omitted), there was "other evidence" in this case: blood inside the house, the loud bangs heard by the officers while they were outside, Antony's statement that multiple other individuals were involved, and Matalonis's assertions to the contrary, which were therefore suspect (as was Antony's account)."​

I am inclined to agree with the state Supreme Court. There is blood in various parts of the home. There is blood on a locked door. Blood on a locked door certainly does establish a reasonable belief someone injured could be inside the room on the other side of the locked door. It is reasonable to think the blood on the locked door occurred when the bleeding, injured person was placed into the room and the injured subject made contact with the front of the door as the attacker struggled to open the door while supporting the weight of the bleeding victim. Then, in an effort to conceal the bleeding, injured victim, the door is locked. Those beliefs are reasonable with blood on the door in addition to blood in various parts of the house. At the time the officers had no way of determining whether the all the blood in the home, including the blood on the door, was of the brother or someone else.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Based on the Court of Appeals case, it appears they would need a new exception. Their standard (at least one plank of their three plank requirement) is that the officer(s) must know with a high level of certainty that there is 1) a person and 2) in danger. Neither existed in this case.

Well, not quite. First, the state Supreme Court and lower appellate court invoked and relied upon the same legal standard of "when under the totality of the
circumstances an objectively reasonable basis for the community caretaker function is shown..." The disagreement between the state Supreme Court and the lower appellate court was whether the facts of the case satisfied the "objectively reasonable basis" standard. The state Supreme Court explicitly mentioned this disagreement.

And I believe what I stated was the level the Appeals Court noted they were aiming at. Objectively reasonable to them in their precedence is that the officer(s) knows there is a person there and they have reason to believe the specific person is in distress.

As I noted prior, the circumstances seem reasonable to search and the Court of Appeals was being too restrictive for the known circumstances.

 

[zorq]

Is it objectively reasonable to think that there's an injured person behind every door with blood on it? Really?

The blood was not flowing out from behind the door. It was on the side of the door the police observed. The same side of the door the injured pot grower was. The same side of the door the altercation had allegedly taken place.

There was no objective evidence that more than the two people were involved in the altercation. Conflicting testimony is not objective evidence. Blood on a door does not constitute objective evidence that a third person was injured OR that a third person may be behind that door OR that a third person even exists.

Without any objective evidence indicating even the existence of a third person, how can there be an objectively reasonable basis to break down a door to help that third person?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is it objectively reasonable to think that there's an injured person behind every door with blood on it? Really?

The blood was not flowing out from behind the door. It was on the side of the door the police observed. The same side of the door the injured pot grower was. The same side of the door the altercation had allegedly taken place.

There was no objective evidence that more than the two people were involved in the altercation. Conflicting testimony is not objective evidence. Blood on a door does not constitute objective evidence that a third person was injured OR that a third person may be behind that door OR that a third person even exists.

Without any objective evidence indicating even the existence of a third person, how can there be an objectively reasonable basis to break down a door to help that third person?

The problem is that they were lying to the police about what happened. If it's serious enough to warrant police involvement and then they lie about it I find it quite reasonable the police would check for further victims.