Fort Worth cop shoots woman in her home after being called to do a "welfare check" (quotes, important)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes they were. There were no exigent circumstances associated with the "welfare check."
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944
Cops can legally knock on the front door, no problem. Cops DO NOT have the right to creep around your property peering through windows without any justifiable reason. This isn't Nazi Germany and it's not 1942.
I think you folk are simply wrong. The officer will claim the nature of the call and the circumstance caused him and his partner to approach the situation carefully. And I would bet that will all hold together.
The question will be the actual shot. He will likely claim he reacted to a person pointing a gun at him. But he should have known that the owner or resident of the home had every right to be armed and to point a gun at anyone in her backyard.
I think you folk are simply wrong. The officer will claim the nature of the call and the circumstance caused him and his partner to approach the situation carefully. And I would bet that will all hold together.
The question will be the actual shot. He will likely claim he reacted to a person pointing a gun at him. But he should have known that the owner or resident of the home had every right to be armed and to point a gun at anyone in her backyard.
The officer with him said that they did not see a gun.
A person in Missouri can use deadly force to protect his/her property only if deadly force would be authorized otherwise by law: https://codes.findlaw.com/mo/title-x...t-563-041.html. The only "otherwise" use of deadly force I've found in Missouri has to deal with the castle doctrine or self defense laws that apply outside of the house (which includes reasonable fear to your life or of serious bodily injury).
Can you show me where in Missouri law you can use deadly force for the mere protection of your property?
The officer with him said that they did not see a gun.
Again I do not believe that is true. The other officer said she could see nothing but the lady's face because of glare from the shooters flashlight. But she has made no statement about what he saw. And in fact there would appear to be only two reasons why he shot. He saw a gun or did it accidentally. No indication he went into the yard to shot someone in the house.
I'm really sick and tired of people misleading and speaking authoritatively on subjects that they clearly don't understand
No, the police were not trespassing. And, no, the police do not need exigent circumstances to enter onto your property without a warrant, especially if your property is generally open to the public (e.g. there is no high locked gate that blocks members of the public from entering) OR when engaging in other police duties that require them to attempt to make contact with you.
Note, your yard is a part of your curtilage. The below legal article explains what the police can and cannot do in terms of entry into someone's curtilage:
Because of the expectation of privacy associated with curtilage, police officers may be required to have a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstance before they are legally allowed to enter into the curtilage. However, this is not always the case. If a person does not prevent any public access to their curtilage, it may not be given protection. This can be seen in a situation where a person has a fenced in yard, but the gate remains open for members of the public (mailman, vistors, etc.) to come into the curtilage. Because of this, a police officer is allowed to do the same. Additionally, although a person may have constructed a fence that obstructs the view into their yard, if there is a tall building or hill nearby, police officers are allowed to observe from the area since any other person could do the same thing. This permission to observe also extends to the airspace above a person’s property, as long as it is public airspace and not restricted.
Quote:
Police are also allowed to enter into the curtilage without having to seek a warrant or consent if they are lawfully allowed to be there by being engaged in official police business. This can be seen in various situations such as responding to a 911 call or attempting to talk to the owner of the property. Police officers are allowed this authority due to the fact that since the curtilage is the area where the owner or occupant of the property spends a lot of time, it is reasonable for a police officer to look for them there.
Note, this doesn't even get into the fact that there would be nothing to challenge under the 4th Amendment; there was no search or seizure, just a safety check.
No, they weren't. Exigent circumstances would have allowed them to enter into the house without a warrant. Exigent circumstances are not needed to walk into the property grounds when responding to a call.
Yes, exigent circumstances ARE required. Trespass laws still apply to police. They don’t have carte blanche to simply enter upon the closed areas of your property.
When responding to this call, the officer needed to knock on the door and identify himself. There was no legal justification to dispense with that and go straight to illegal trespass.
I think you folk are simply wrong. The officer will claim the nature of the call and the circumstance caused him and his partner to approach the situation carefully. And I would bet that will all hold together.
The cop will have to be able to articulate for the judge and jury just what those circumstances were. So far, there has been no publicly released information of ANY circumstances that will justify the cops behavior.
I'm really sick and tired of people misleading and speaking authoritatively on subjects that they clearly don't understand
No, the police were not trespassing. And, no, the police do not need exigent circumstances to enter onto your property without a warrant, especially if your property is generally open to the public (e.g. there is no high locked gate that blocks members of the public from entering) OR when engaging in other police duties that require them to attempt to make contact with you.
Note, your yard is a part of your curtilage. The below legal article explains what the police can and cannot do in terms of entry into someone's curtilage:
Note, this doesn't even get into the fact that there would be nothing to challenge under the 4th Amendment; there was no search or seizure, just a safety check.
Did you not read the report where the officer opened the gate and entered into the fenced in area of the yard?
You highlighted the relevant portion of the curtilage issue in the article you linked and you’re STILL getting it wrong.
Yes, exigent circumstances ARE required. Trespass laws still apply to police. They don’t have carte blanche to simply enter upon the closed areas of your property.
When responding to this call, the officer needed to knock on the door and identify himself. There was no legal justification to dispense with that and go straight to illegal trespass.
Even then, it would only be trespass if the officer had notice that entry onto the property was forbidden (that's the standard definition, but that doesn't apply to welfare checks or to officers otherwise acting in their official duties). You get to that point based on things like "no trespassing" signs, locked fence(s) surrounding your property, etc. That's kind of hard to argue based on the layout of Atiana Jefferson's house.
Did you not read the report where the officer opened the gate and entered into the fenced in area of the yard?
You highlighted the relevant portion of the curtilage issue in the article you linked and you’re STILL getting it wrong.
The gate wasn't locked. It was an unsecured gate and otherwise open to the public, to include mailmen, people showing up with flyers, etc. And the highlighted part expressly mentions that the gate isn't open to the public . . . that wasn't the case here
You try to rebut and still fail
Moreover, I like how you ignore the entire second quote from the legal article, which talks about a completely separate lawful means for police officers to be on someone's property; that highlighted part was only for the first justifiable presence on someone's property.
Try again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
