Can a police officer lawfully order someone to enter their home if they are outside?

OC for ME · Aug 22, 2014

OC for ME said:
You: Officer, I know you have a job to do, but I am not and will not interfere with your efforts. Now, if this will be a issue for you, then we can resolve this issue at a later date in a courtroom, in front of a judge.

Check. Did not work out.

OC for ME said:
Ultimately, only a judge can determine the answer to the question at hand.

He did, just not the way he should have worked it out.

OC for ME said:
If you are on your own property, tell the cop to take a hike.

Nix this course of action, bad idea in Pierce County, Washington.

Note to self...do not go to Pierce County, Washington.

OC for ME · Aug 22, 2014

Remember, it was a jury of your peers that screwed you.

rapgood · Aug 22, 2014

Any LEO who "orders" me inside my house when I am lawfully outside gets his way. I go inside, over my objection. Then I get my way when I sue the SOB for false imprisonment.

Make sure it's all recorded. Otherwise the LEO's lies will prevail in court. And you can always tell when they are testilying... their lips are moving.

OC for ME · Aug 22, 2014

I suspect that living in a apartment complex does not confer the same constitutional protections that owning land would.

Tough situation.

Primus · Aug 22, 2014

Grim_Night said:
What is the most relevant case regarding "police having no duty to protect"? I ask because the judge in my case seems to think that I interfered with with.

Be careful community caretaking doctrine is a bit different then "duty to protect". You said he focused on community caretaking role so if you want to challenge that you need to focus on that NOT duty to protect.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

rapgood · Aug 22, 2014

OC for ME said:
I suspect that living in a apartment complex does not confer the same constitutional protections that owning land would.

Tough situation.

It doesn't matter where you live. Constitutional protections for are afforded to people, not places. Katz v. United States.

Freedom1Man · Aug 22, 2014

Grim_Night said:
What is the most relevant case regarding "police having no duty to protect"? I ask because the judge in my case seems to think that I interfered with with.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...on=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions

By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado

Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.

Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined.

Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.1 Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns. Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html
Warren v. District of Columbia

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody.

http://www.copblock.org/27067/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-you/

I hope these help you

carolina guy · Aug 22, 2014

Primus said:
Be careful community caretaking doctrine is a bit different then "duty to protect". You said he focused on community caretaking role so if you want to challenge that you need to focus on that NOT duty to protect.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Doesn't the "community caretaking" doctrine usually focus on the 4th Amendment, not the 1st, 2nd, 5th or 14th?

Primus · Aug 22, 2014

carolina guy said:
Doesn't the "community caretaking" doctrine usually focus on the 4th Amendment, not the 1st, 2nd, 5th or 14th?

Depends. That's where it usually gets challenged because guys will fight a stop,seizure, or even entry into dwelling, but its still a different concept. Community caretaking doesn't have a set amendment it can affect basically. That is just the one you see so often.

Its hard to affect freedom of speech and due process without ALSO affecting the 4th.

My point is just that community caretaking and "duty to protect" aren't always one in the same.

Also, look at it this way. If they are claiming what they did was to protect you or the community then you can't use the fact they have no legal "duty" to do so. Even of they don't have to they still CAN.

It'd be like suing the cops for saving you from committing suicide. Yea sure no "duty" to protect you from yourself but IF they do you cant sue them for doing so.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

carolina guy · Aug 22, 2014

Grim_Night said:
So, I was fund guilty yesterday. Seems the judge, the police and the prosecutor seem to think that in part, the police were trying to protect me. The
judge even made a comment about me preventing the police from performing their "community caretaker" duty. All of this despite the fact that many high courts across the country have ruled that police are not obligated to protect the individual citizen.

The court also ignored the fact that my lawyer repeatedly proved through testimony of the officers that they had no legal authority to force me to cease exercising my constitutionally protected right to observe and record the police and force me to go inside where I would not be able to observe and record the police.

My lawyer even through testimony of the K-9 officer proved that he could have continued to track the suspect they were searching for if I was the only one that had been standing in the location that I was standing during the entire incident but, because there were multiple officers that were constantly approaching me and standing in my location, their added presence added to the difficulty of tracking.

There were a lot of "possibilities" in the prosecutor's case but no definites. It was all a matter of "I might have interfered" but no "I absolutely did interfere". So I was found guilty on a chance that I interfered.

As far as the sentencing went, the prosecutor originally offered me a plea deal of $300 and 1 year of being crime free and then the whole thing would be dismissed. I ended up getting 5-10 days in jail, $1000 fine and 2 years of "supervision".

I'm appalled at the state of our justice system where somebody can be found guilty of "willfully" hindering or delaying police which requires intent when in fact, my intent was simply to observe and record passively.

My lawyer is already working on the appeal and a stay of sentencing.

If you don't mind my asking, what were you actually charged with and ultimately found guilty of??

carolina guy · Aug 22, 2014

Primus said:
Depends. That's where it usually gets challenged because guys will fight a stop,seizure, or even entry into dwelling, but its still a different concept. Community caretaking doesn't have a set amendment it can affect basically. That is just the one you see so often.

Its hard to affect freedom of speech and due process without ALSO affecting the 4th.

My point is just that community caretaking and "duty to protect" aren't always one in the same.

Also, look at it this way. If they are claiming what they did was to protect you or the community then you can't use the fact they have no legal "duty" to do so. Even of they don't have to they still CAN.

It'd be like suing the cops for saving you from committing suicide. Yea sure no "duty" to protect you from yourself but IF they do you cant sue them for doing so.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Good points. Sounds like, however, this case might be a bit shaky since I am unaware of an enumerated "community caretaking duty" for Grim to have been guilty of obstructing the officers from performing...

Primus · Aug 22, 2014

This no duty to protect thing is the biggest scam ever.

Its to keep me from suing cops every time I get punched in the face. Not give them a free pass to not respond to calls. "Your honor the officer wasn't protecting me from myself at the bar last night so a woman slapped me. I want $10,000 in damages because they have a duty to protect me". Lol

If I recall didn't two officers just have to shoot that guy with the knife? Why? Should've kept on rolling. Wave as they drive by and say "sorry scotus says I don't have too!!". Instead they roll up, CLEARLY put themselves well within the oh crap distance of a knife (so literally put themselves at risk), have to shoot the guy and now deal with mental and physical repercussions.

If anything that ruling says more about the populous then it does the police. Scotus needed to step in to stop dumb people from suing over things. Yet the police still go to work everyday and put their a** on the line for people when they don't "have" to.

Maybe they haven't received the memo yet? Let copblock know all they have to do to get cops to go away is tell them they have no duty. They'll just cruise the beach and never go to calls.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

OC for ME · Aug 22, 2014

rapgood said:
It doesn't matter where you live. Constitutional protections for are afforded to people, not places. Katz v. United States.

Of course they are.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The SCOTUS has defined what is a "house" and it extends beyond your front door.

For example, I have a sidewalk running through my property, for q-munity access/use to the other parts of the sidewalk. The city has a easement, 10' where I live, that permits them to use my land and to afford access to the public. Further past the 10' is considered my "house" my private property. Apartment complex? Nope, you "own" that which is inside your front door, the rest is just like my sidewalk easement. Not the same.

OC for ME · Aug 22, 2014

privacy issues, Katz v US has nothing to do with the OPs issue. Can a cop tell you to go back inside if you are outside your apartment? Technically he was on "public land" and the jury decided that he was likely preventing the cops from "taking care of the q-munity."

If he had been in his own front yard and they are cutting through his private property then he would not have to enter into his house because some cop says so. He owns the land and thus he can be anywhere he wants to be on his private land as long as he does not impede the cops in their quest to care for the q-munity.

A cop stopped a couple of kids and they happen to make a wrong turn into my cul-d-sac, yepper, right onto my driveway. About 2 AM, I walk out onto my front porch to see what all the ruckus was. The cop tells me to go back inside. I told him to call a supervisor. "I'll let him school you on your authority to tell me where I can and cannot go on my own private property. So, I'll stand right here on my porch and observe." Yes, I was OCing and he knew that I was armed.

Nope, he did not call a supervisor. Didn't say another word to me in fact. Cited the two and sent them on their way.

Primus · Aug 22, 2014

OC for ME said:
privacy issues, Katz v US has nothing to do with the OPs issue. Can a cop tell you to go back inside if you are outside your apartment? Technically he was on "public land" and the jury decided that he was likely preventing the cops from "taking care of the q-munity."

If he had been in his own front yard and they are cutting through his private property then he would not have to enter into his house because some cop says so. He owns the land and thus he can be anywhere he wants to be on his private land as long as he does not impede the cops in their quest to care for the q-munity.

A cop stopped a couple of kids and they happen to make a wrong turn into my cul-d-sac, yepper, right onto my driveway. About 2 AM, I walk out onto my front porch to see what all the ruckus was. The cop tells me to go back inside. I told him to call a supervisor. "I'll let him school you on your authority to tell me where I can and cannot go on my own private property. So, I'll stand right here on my porch and observe." Yes, I was OCing and he knew that I was armed.

Nope, he did not call a supervisor. Didn't say another word to me in fact. Cited the two and sent them on their way.

Good explanation +1.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

madicarus · Aug 22, 2014

carolina guy said:
Good points. Sounds like, however, this case might be a bit shaky since I am unaware of an enumerated "community caretaking duty" for Grim to have been guilty of obstructing the officers from performing...

There is no community caretaking "duty", it is just a function. The June 2014 Final Search Seizures and Confessions shows:

Police officers serve numerous functions in society, some of which are totally divorced from the investigation of crimes. The non-crime related duties are termed “community caretaking functions.” Cady v. Dombroski, 413 U.S. 433, 93 S. Ct. 2523, 37 L. Ed.2d 706 (1973).

Under Officer Initiated Contacts it also shows:

An officer does not commit a "seizure" by merely contacting a person to inquire about his or her welfare. On the other hand, any action that interferes with a person's freedom of movement is a "seizure," even if carried out pursuant to one of these statutes. The Washington Supreme Court recently placed limits on "seizures" that are carried out pursuant to a community caretaking function. Whether the actions taken during a routine check on safety are reasonable depends on a balancing of the individual's interest in freedom from police interference against the public's interest in having the police perform a community caretaking function. Police officers may approach citizens and permissively inquire as to whether they will answer questions and whether they need aid.

It sounds like the judge made the comment about community caretaking but if the charge was obstruction/interfering, then Grimm is arguing a point that doesnt seem to apply. Focus on the elements of the crime, not an argument on responsibilities by the officers that isnt being argued by the state.

OC for ME · Aug 22, 2014

Primus said:
Good explanation +1.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Thanks.

The issue is when cops start defining, on the fly, what "impeding" is when they are on private land.

madicarus · Aug 22, 2014

Primus said:
This no duty to protect thing is the biggest scam ever.

If anything that ruling says more about the populous then it does the police. Scotus needed to step in to stop dumb people from suing over things. Yet the police still go to work everyday and put their a** on the line for people when they don't "have" to.

Apparently the police, sheriffs, prosecutors, and municipalities didnt get the memo about this "scam" either as they still argue the "Public Duty Doctrine" to dismiss claims. Just last year the WA Supreme Court ruled in a case that the Public Duty Doctrine did not bar a lawsuit when the City of Federal Way used it as an excuse in a situation where an officer served an anti-harassment order on someone when the person wanting it served was also there and subsequently stabbed and died by the person who was served the order. (Washburn v City of Federal Way).

F350 · Aug 22, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Sorry you were a victim of the statist courts.

This is what happens when you relie on government (the courts) to protect you from the government.

F350 · Aug 22, 2014

Fallschirmjäger said:
Warren v DC

Police officers, armed with deadly weapons, chemical weapons, impact weapons and electrical discharge weapons are the very LAST people I want caretaking in my community. They're equipped to harm, kill, and arrest.
I want someone skilled in taking care of me, send in the fire department and EMT's if you're worried about my well-being.

Preferably a female EMT with big boobs; I would feel well taken care of then :banana:

Can a police officer lawfully order someone to enter their home if they are outside?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member