6 Police Officers Point Guns at the Apartment Door and Window. Yell: "OPEN THE DOOR!" Knock & Talk?
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- AUDIO FIXED!
The knock-and-talk exception permits police “to encroach upon the curtilage of a home, for the purpose of asking questions of the occupants.” United States v. Lundin, 817 F.3d 1158,1158 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). The exception is based on the theory of implied consent: a resident's consent is implied from the custom of treating the “knocker on the front door” as an invitation (i.e., license) to approach the home and knock. Id. (quoting Fla. v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013)). “The constitutionality of such entries ... hinges on whether the officer's actions are consistent with an attempt to initiate consensual contact with the occupants.” United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1188 (9th Cir. 2012).
The officers’ actions here are not consistent with a knock and talk. The body cam footage showed that six officers approached the Cormacks’ apartment and positioned themselves around the front entrance of the apartment, three of the officers with their guns drawn and pointed at the front window and door. One of the officers positioned by the door knocked as a second officer yelled, “Open the door!” The officer in front of the door kept his gun pointed at the door until the door opened and he saw Ms. Cormack. The officer then lowered his gun, but he did not put it in the holster. An officer asked if Martin was in the apartment. When Ms. Cormack answered that he was, another officer told her, “We are going to need you to come out.” See United States v. Chan-Jiminez, 125 F.3d 1324, 1327 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that consent was not voluntary when officer's request for permission to search was made “with one hand resting on [the officer's] gun”); United States v. Marshall, 488 F.2d 1169, 1189 (9th Cir. 1973) (concluding that any consent to search was “in response to an overwhelming display of authority under the compulsion of the badge and the guns” and not voluntary).
Read the Full case here: United States v. Martin, No. 21-10128, 2022 WL 1577807 (9th Cir. May 19, 2022)
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
lawstache.com/...
Want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101
Want to learn about our recent victories?
lawstache.com/...
Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
russiansandieg...
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Don't open the door !
Some gentlemen asked for my wallet, watch, car keys and shoes while pointing guns at me. I consented to their request. Voluntary?
Since when do you show up at someone's home of residence, 6-men deep with gvns drawn, demanding that they open the door, just so you can talk?!? That's not a knock and talk. That type of behavior is threatening and is results in people preparing themselves to defend themselves from a home invasion.
Appreciate how you explain the cases. They are very educational. I know the Court has used common law and the customs of the times to create the 4th amendment exceptions. I understand the reasoning for them. It's that my mind can't accept the legitimacy of them due to the fact that the 4th doesn't include them. To me it's as if the Court amended the Constitution.
Thank you so much for a nice comment! Agree, some exceptions are hard to appreciate. Thanks for the views and subscription. ~ Anton V.
That's much better audio.
Great! I'm a lawyer (civil/hydraulic engineer in my previous career). Definitely not an audio engineer. Glad I was able to make it a little better. Thanks for the reply!
When you do these, could you also mention how the lower court reacted and what the verdict was?
_{This comment was deleted by CZcams staff for your safety and feelings. _*_The First Amendment is not allowed on this platform._*_ Thank you for your understanding.}_
It clearly wasn't deleted. However, I probably need to focus some of my videos on the First Amendment. CZcams is a private company and thus not bound by the First Amendment. Additionally, as a channel creator and moderator, I also have a right to delete comments and restrict viewership without running afoul of your 1st Amd. rights. But for now, be respectful and you can voice your opinions. Cheers!
@@LAWSTACHE *It was deleted a few times. Wasn't anything even close to something that could be deemed inappropriate. I have to check via editing to make sure a comment stays every single time, and more times than not, it's deleted. So I post this in it's place.*
Cheeky
Police Lie a friend of mine had a warrant served the sheriff said he hit and ran into someone to get him out of the house thinking he hit someone then they searched his place stole money and destroyed everything and went out of the scope of the warrant. Stole diamond rings silver and much more never was it in what they took.