Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: New 4th Circuit Ruling: Summons does not allow cops to enter your home

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    New 4th Circuit Ruling: Summons does not allow cops to enter your home

    Entry into a home to serve a summons violated the Fourth Amendment

    Opinion here:
    [Sergeant David L.] Moore contends that he did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Esperanza Guerrero when he entered her home in an effort to serve a judicially-issued misdemeanor summons on Antonia Munguia. He fails to persuade us, however, that the summons was the functional equivalent of an arrest warrant for Fourth Amendment purposes. Summonses confer more limited authority than arrest warrants; notably, Moore lacked the authority to take Munguia into custody upon service of the summons. Moore fails to cite any persuasive Fourth Amendment precedent that permits a government official to enter a dwelling to serve a non-custodial misdemeanor summons. Indeed, the latest relevant opinion of the Virginia Attorney General concludes that an officer lacks such authority. 2003 Va. Op. Att’y Gen. 64, 2003 WL 23208766 (Sept. 16, 2003) (“[A]bsent consent of a dwelling owner, a law-enforcement officer must obtain a warrant before entering a dwelling for the purpose of serving a summons for a misdemeanor.”).
    The fact is that in Virginia, most gun-related offenses are punishable as misdemeanors. Further, Virginia continues to prefers Summons over custodial arrests, so this opinion helps safeguard your home from police invasion to serve a Summons.

    Moore is denied Qualified Immunity; too bad for him.

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Repeater View Post
    Entry into a home to serve a summons violated the Fourth Amendment

    Opinion here:

    [Quoted material lost in reply]

    The fact is that in Virginia, most gun-related offenses are punishable as misdemeanors. Further, Virginia continues to prefers Summons over custodial arrests, so this opinion helps safeguard your home from police invasion to serve a Summons.

    Moore is denied Qualified Immunity; too bad for him.
    Refreshing that they didn't take the opportunity to push the line farther!

    TFred

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Now I'm all confused.

    Wasn't it just a few years ago that a "Moore" or "More" got arrested for a misdemeanor instead of summonsed, and the 4th Circuit said in that case that the 4th Amendment did not protect? Something about the 4A not protecting someone against a violation of state law (the cop arresting someone for a misdemeanor instead of issuing a summons)?

    Moore. Misdemeanor. Summons. Arrest. Sometimes the 4A does protect; sometimes it don't.

    Aughhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!



    Aha! I thought so! Virginia vs Moore 2008: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1082.ZO.html
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-11-2011 at 11:44 PM.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Now I'm all confused.

    Wasn't it just a few years ago that a "Moore" or "More" got arrested for a misdemeanor instead of summonsed, and the 4th Circuit said in that case that the 4th Amendment did not protect? Something about the 4A not protecting someone against a violation of state law (the cop arresting someone for a misdemeanor instead of issuing a summons)?

    Moore. Misdemeanor. Summons. Arrest. Sometimes the 4A does protect; sometimes it don't.

    Aughhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!



    Aha! I thought so! Virginia vs Moore 2008: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1082.ZO.html
    That's what surprised me, The 4th Circuit is usually a get out of jail card for LEO's.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    That's what surprised me, The 4th Circuit is usually a get out of jail card for LEO's.
    Have there been any new judicial appointments that heard this case?

    TFred

  6. #6
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    The judges happen to support the Fourth Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Have there been any new judicial appointments that heard this case?

    TFred
    Diana Gribbon Motz

    Barbara Milano Keenan

    James A. Wynn, Jr.

    None were appointed by a republican.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Summons vs. Custodial Arrest

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Now I'm all confused.

    Wasn't it just a few years ago that a "Moore" or "More" got arrested for a misdemeanor instead of summonsed, and the 4th Circuit said in that case that the 4th Amendment did not protect? Something about the 4A not protecting someone against a violation of state law (the cop arresting someone for a misdemeanor instead of issuing a summons)?

    Moore. Misdemeanor. Summons. Arrest. Sometimes the 4A does protect; sometimes it don't.

    Aughhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!



    Aha! I thought so! Virginia vs Moore 2008: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-1082.ZO.html
    You, like me, noticed the irony of the name Moore.

    The case where Moore was the victim of a cop was arrested when he should have been issued a Summons. There never was a Summons in that case.

    This case, where Moore is the bad guy (a cop), involved a Summons that was issued by a judge, and the cop treated it like a Custodial Arrest. The panel, in an unpublished opinion, said cops in Virginia can't do that.

    Note this case came from Prince William County. Perhaps the plaintiffs are/were "undocumented" -- maybe that colored the opinion, although in theory it shouldn't have.

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    I read through the opinion... They really zapped the Sergeant:

    Thus, qualified immunity extends “ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
    Then they found he did not merit said immunity. Ouch.

    TFred

  9. #9
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    En Banc, next?

    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I read through the opinion... They really zapped the Sergeant:
    Then they found he did not merit said immunity. Ouch.

    TFred
    The opinion was per curiam. Perhaps the Sergeant will seek an appeal En Banc.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •