http://www.utsandiego.com/staff/greg-moran/
Four years ago, La Mesa police
Officer Mike Stanton stepped out of his patrol car and shouted at a man
crossing Thorne Street to stop.
That
routine bit of police work, and the events that followed in the next
few minutes, has turned into something more. Because of a ruling by the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this month, the outcome of that
encounter might end up changing how police officers are trained and go
about their work.
A
three-judge panel of the court ruled that when police officers are
pursuing someone who might be guilty of nothing more than a simple
misdemeanor, they cannot barge on to private property in pursuit of the
suspect.
Instead, they would
have to ask permission to enter the property or get a search warrant —
all to avoid violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens
against illegal searches and seizures by law enforcement.
In
this case, when Stanton yelled, “Police!,” the man didn’t stop,
according to court records. Nicholas Patrick instead continued to walk
slowly across the street, then through a wooden gate into the front yard
of Drendolyn Sims’ home.
The gate, part of a 6-foot tall wooden fence that surrounded the property, closed behind Patrick.
The
officer then approached the house and without warning kicked in the
gate. It flew off of its hinges and struck Sims, who was standing next
to it on the other side, inside her yard.
She
was knocked unconscious and fell to the ground, court records say, and
suffered a shoulder injury that later required surgery. She sued Stanton
and the city of La Mesa for $500,000, claiming the officer violated her
constitutional rights against unlawful searches by the government.
The
case was thrown out in San Diego federal court. But on Dec. 3, the
panel of appeals court judges reinstated the case, ruling there was no
legal justification for Stanton to enter Sims’ home, and that the
officer was not immune from being sued.
The
ruling could mean officers pursuing suspects — say possible drunken
drivers who pull into their own driveways and enter their homes — may
have to get search warrants.
Under
the law, police are allowed to go on to private property in the “hot
pursuit” of fleeing suspects believed to have committed serious felony
crimes such as murder or assault.
But
this month’s ruling written by the 9th Circuit’s most well-known
liberal, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, said that power does not apply if
police are chasing someone guilty of no more than a low-level
misdemeanor.
That was the
case in the incident in La Mesa. Officers had been called to the
neighborhood because of a brawl in the street. But when Stanton and his
partner arrived, all was calm, according to the ruling.
Only
Patrick and two other men, who also walked away in the opposite
direction, were there, said Sims’ lawyer, L. Marcel Stewart, who argued
and won the case.
At the
most, by not stopping when police called to him, Patrick may have
committed the crime of disobeying a lawful order from a police officer.
That’s a misdemeanor in California.
The law allows police to enter
private property under certain circumstances, such as the potential for
the destruction of evidence or that a suspect will flee. It also allows
for emergencies, such as immediate danger to the public or police.
In this instance, neither applied, Reinhardt said.
The
officer’s lawyer, Peter Ferguson, argued that Stanton did not want
Patrick to escape, but the panel said that was not “a serious enough
consequence to justify a warrantless entry,” because the arrest would
only be for a minor crime.
Stanton
also said he feared for his safety, arguing that he was concerned
Patrick could enter the home, arm himself and come back out.
That,
too, was discounted by the appeals court panel, which said there “was
simply no evidence of imminent danger to the officer or anyone else.”
Stewart said the decision draws a bright line on when police can enter private property.
“The
officer can’t say, ‘Because he committed a minor crime I’m going to
pursue him on to private residential property,’” he said. “It makes the
law very clear now. If you have a misdemeanor, a minor offense, you
can’t do it.”
Ron
Cottingham, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of
California, a labor group representing more than 60,000 law enforcement
officers in California, said if the decision stands, “it would change
the face of police work and how we operate.”
Cottingham
said such a ruling could put officers in danger if they hesitate to
mentally determine if someone they are chasing has committed a
misdemeanor or a felony.
Ferguson
has asked a larger panel of the court to take up the opinion and review
it. Failing that, he said he will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take up
the matter and is being backed up by law enforcement groups that have
learned of the decision.
He
contended that the opinion misinterprets the law on what police can do
when pursuing someone, and conflicts with state law and rulings from
other federal appeals courts.
As it stands now, Ferguson said, the opinion hinders the ability of police to chase and capture suspects.
“Officers
are taught when you see a crime committed in a public place, you have a
right to go get that individual without a search warrant,” he said.
“This opinion, if it stands, creates a lot of problems for that aspect
of their training.”
Stewart
said the court noted there was no evidence when the officers arrived on
the street that a crime had taken place or was ongoing. When Patrick
was caught later, he possessed no weapons.
If the ruling stands, the case would return to federal court in San Diego and perhaps could go to trial or be settled.
COMMENT
Anyone can go to http://
COMMENT
Anyone can go to http://
