United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Cops Break Into Innocent Sleeping Woman’s Home, Shoot Her—Now She Faces Life in Prison
Source:
From The Trenches/FTP
URL Source: https://fromthetrenchesworldreport. ... he-faces-life-in-prison/258613
Published: Dec 11, 2019
Author: Matt Agorist
Post Date: 2019-12-12 02:25:02 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 17273
Comments: 93
Free Thought Project – by Matt Agorist Winter Park, FL — Bobbie Sapp, 49, is a registered nurse, who has no criminal past. Despite never having committed a crime, because of the backward justice system in America, coupled with violent police welfare checks, Sapp is now facing the possibility of life behind bars. On the night in question, Sapp had done nothing wrong, had committed no crime, and harmed no one—yet police broke into her home, raided her bedroom as she slept, and shot her. Then, they had the audacity to arrest her and charge her with multiple felonies. Sapp’s nightmare began in September of 2017 as she slept comfortably in her own bed in her own home. Instead of waking up to her alarm that fateful morning, Sapp would wake up to multiple shadowy figures surrounding her in her bedroom, pulling off her covers, yelling at her, tasering her, and eventually, shooting her. Sapp is so confident that she did nothing wrong that she went on camera recently with News 6 Orlando to tell her side of the story. It is nothing short of shocking. She says the entire incident began because her disgruntled ex-boyfriend used a police welfare check to deliberately harm her. It worked. “He used this wellness check as a way to put me in harm’s way,” she said. Indeed, instead of actually investigating the situation by knocking on the door, calling her, or any other number of non-violent means, cops helped this man — who did not live in the house and could have been anyone — break in to her home and then shoot this woman on his behalf. “My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator. Sapp says these were all lies. If she actually wanted to kill herself, she could’ve used one of the two guns which she regularly sleeps with. She did not. “She is very well armed,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun. “She’s threatened suicide by cop before,” he said. There is no record of Sapp ever attempting to commit suicide by herself or by cop before. Also, if she was trying to commit suicide by cop that night — she would have had to call the cops. She did not call the police. “I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop,” Sapp told News 6. Nevertheless, police show up to the home and start taking directions from Sapp’s ex, who did not live there. “There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don’t want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend said during the call. When police arrived on scene, Sapp’s ex showed them how to break into the home and they followed his directions. “I’m asking if there’s any weapons in the house, he tells me there’s enough weapons in the house to start a revolution,” officer Jeff Marcum, one of the responding officers, said according to an interview obtained by News 6. Those weapons consisted of two pistols recovered from Sapp’s bed after she’d been shot. Police claim that when they were breaking into Sapp’s home that they announced themselves as cops. However, when they got to Sapp’s bedroom, they admit that they did not announce themselves and she was still sleeping. She had no idea they were police. “We’re yelling at her to, you know, let us see your hands, let us see your hands,” Marcum said. Because the innocent woman who was just shaken out of sleep by heavily armed strangers in her bedroom, did not immediately begin to prostrate herself at the feet of her home invaders, force was escalated. “I didn’t have my glasses on, I’m legally blind,” Sapp said. “I couldn’t identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me.” “At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us,” Marcum told investigators. Sapp disputes the notion that she ever pointed a gun. She says that had she actually pointed a gun, she would be dead because more than one of the cops would’ve fired their guns. “If I had been pointing my gun, the way they said that I was, why didn’t they all shoot me, instead of just one person?” Sapp asked. Indeed, as TFTP has reported on a regular basis, cops are more than willing to shoot someone for merely reaching for areas where there may be a gun. If you actually point a gun at a cop, especially four of them, rest assured, you are going to be filled with holes immediately. Instead of shooting her, one cop deployed his taser. Marcum, apparently scared of his own shadow then did what the other officers in the room never felt necessary: he pulled out his gun and put a bullet into Sapp. This innocent woman, who had harmed no one, was asleep in her own bedroom, and did nothing wrong, was then shot in the shoulder and arrested. “It doesn’t make any sense that they would come in that way unless they were lied to by somebody that was using this well-being check as a tool to put me in harm’s way,” Sapp said. “To process that has been really, really difficult. It’s something that could happen to anyone.” Despite the fact that not a single cop was injured, and the fact that Sapp never fired of a round, and the fact that she was the one who was shot, this woman was arrested and charged with the following felonies: Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm Sapp, whose trial begins this month, now faces the possibility of life behind bars for attempting to defend herself against multiple armed home invaders who happened to wear badges. All of this, of course, was carried out for her own safety.
Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm
Agg. Assault On A Leo (w/ A Deadly Weapon)
Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon
Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon
Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon
Resisting Officer With Violence
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-53) not displayed.
.
.
.
#54. To: nolu chan (#52)
Let me help you out by appending: .... in her own home, in her bedroom. Yes, because she has a reasonable expectation of security within her own home. I suppose you don't believe people have any such reasonable expectation of security within their home. Fine. The cop who shot a guy holding a wallet ALSO had no way of knowing whether he faced a deadly threat or not. Apparently his blindness to what that man was holding in full view in open daylight WAS deemed as acceptable ignorance to the fact that there was no danger. She faced a deadly threat no less so than the cop who shot a guy with a wallet. In fact, more so given it happened in her own bedroom. You refuse to read. You refuse to grant the same "fear for my life" standard to a blind woman in her own bedroom as you accept for a cop in open daylight on the street. Admit you have a double standard and I'll consider the conversation closed.
At about 1:37 in the video she shifts her eyes and doesn't appear blind.
People also ask What is the definition of legally blind? If you're completely blind, you can't see any light or form. ... If you're legally blind, your vision is 20/200 or less. That means if an object is 200 feet away, you have to stand 20 feet from it in order to see it clearly. But a person with normal vision can stand 200 feet away and see that object perfectly.Nov 15, 2017
I expect the definition you cite is correct, but the important thing is that "legally blind" does not mean absolutely blind. 20/200 means that one can make out detail at 20 feet that a person with (what is considered) normal vision can make out at 200 feet. That does not mean, of course, that a person with 20/200 vision sees people 20 feet away as though they were 200 feet away. They could still make out shapes and be able to tell the approximate distance away they are, and such a person may very well be able to see and shoot effectively put a bullet into a perceived moving blob. If this woman is not legally blind then I would expect the state to argue that with whatever evidence they possess. I am going on the presumption she is telling the truth and that the state will not contest the claim. The only fact I am aware of that is in dispute is whether she pointed a gun at the police. She claimed she did not, the cops claim she did. There are no body cams in this case.
Are we loosing track of the fact that these guys invaded her house, with no probable cause, only a pretext provided by her ex-boyfriend? They shouldn't have been within the premises in the first place, and even if one is willing to grant them that power, they should have erred on the side of caution, especially finding her alive and obviously not a threat to herself or anyone else. Good Lord, they should have backed off immediately upon finding her asleep in her bed, and very gently called for her attention from a safe distance (outside her bedroom).
It looks like this is just a game to you. You've got nothing better to do with your life than to bait people into arguments that you have no intention of honestly engaging.
I haven't forgot Last sentence post 53.
Giving this "suicide-by-cop" crazed woman time to arm herself and start shooting?
But stalker ex-boyfriends who skulk around a former girlfriend's house seeking to get her harmed...you accept those.
Who cares? No one is supposed to be in her bedroom -- not family, friends, neighbors, police -- so it's a free-fire zone. This is what her bedroom looks like at night when she hears a noise:
They were not there to search for evidence of a crime. A welfare check, also known as a wellness check, occurs when law enforcement officers respond to a request to check on the safety and well-being of a person. These situations typically arise when an individual is having a hard time getting ahold of a family member, friend, or neighbor and they believe something is wrong with the person. The most common type of welfare check is checking on an elderly person. However, welfare checks can be utilized for a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to, potential suicide, drug overdose, and child endangerment. In order to request a welfare check, an individual must first get in contact with law enforcement, whether that be through 911 or a non-emergency number. Prior to contacting law enforcement, an individual must be certain that the person they are concerned about is in danger. If the individual lives in the same area as the person they are concerned about, he or she may accompany authorities to that person’s residence. Additionally, no court order is required for police to conduct a welfare check. As long as the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, they can legally enter the premises. Law enforcement is given this power under the Community Caretaking Doctrine, a judicially created exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Well, there’s that. And curiosly the name of the individual claimed to be the boyfriend or ex-boyfriend appears better protected than Eric Chiaramella. Were the ex-boyfriend’s report to police have been false, he could have been criminally or civilly liable. Using the google, I have not found his name, or any mention of a criminal or civil case. And there is the natural law right of legally blind people to aim guns at blobs. Denying this right to sighted people who can see what they aim their weapon at is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Everybody’s bedroom should be a free zone. /sarc (for the benefit of aging juveniles) But then there is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with not search warrant or court order required. And the Bobbie Sapp hearing in Orange County Court scheduled for 13 January 2020 has been cancelled. Orange County Court Hearing Calendar Case number: 2017-CF-012052-A-O
But then there is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with no search warrant or court order required.
Oh heck, just leave, rehandle yet again and come back as juvenile dumbshit.
I do not accept your geriatric juvenile brainfarts revising the law. Your predicate is bullshit. There is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with no search warrant or court order required.
.... in her own home, in her bedroom. Yes, because she has a reasonable expectation of security within her own home. I suppose you don't believe people have any such reasonable expectation of security within their home. Fine. You can’t help yourself, let alone me. You still do not know what the hell you are talking about and you are just spewing juvenile bullshit that you should have outgrown by now. Let the Office of the State Attorney of Florida help yourself out. http://www.sa15.state.fl.us/stateattorney/ResourceInformation/_content/LegalEagle2016/July2016.pdf Legal Eagle A Newsletter for the Criminal Justice Community July 2016 Published by: [Extract] While it is a basic principle of the Fourth Amendment that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it follows that the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception applies when police officers engage in community caretaking function. Cady v. Dombrowski, (S.Ct. 1973). The Supreme Court has long described the “community caretaking functions” of law enforcement as activities that are ‘"totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Community caretaking functions are performed by law enforcement to “help those in danger.” “A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” The “reasonable belief” required under the community caretaker doctrine “is a less exacting standard than probable cause.” A search or seizure under the community caretaking function is reasonable if the governmental interest in law enforcement’s exercise of that function, based on specific and articulable facts, outweighs the individual’s interest in freedom from government intrusion. “Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.” Eastes v. State, (5DCA 2007). Court's Ruling: The Court of Appeals, after listing the factors known to the officers, easily found their entry into defendant’s home without a warrant lawful. “The specific, articulable facts known to the officers at the time they entered the residence include the following facts, based on [Reporter’s] calls and information from dispatch. Wallace left the halfway house and had not returned by 5:00 p.m., the time she indicated she would return. [Reporter] stated during her first call to 911 that Smith may be holding Wallace at his home against her will. [Reporter] also provided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them. The officers further learned from dispatch that other officers were unable to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ... [Reporter] report that she was ‘sure’ Smith was armed. ... Further, only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door. Wallace had not responded to any phone calls or text messages since she left the half-way house, which was over three hours prior to the time the officers entered Smith’s residence. Finally, [Officer] noticed a person’s face at the back window of Smith’s home after Smith told officers Wallace was not at his home.” “We are satisfied that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered Smith’s residence. The circumstances resemble those in Harris and Quezada, in which officers responded to potential emergency situations to aid members of the community. See United States v. Harris, (8th Cir.2014) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officers responded to a call that a gun was sliding out of the pocket of a sleeping individual at a bus station); United States v. Quezada, (8th Cir.2006) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officer encountered an emergency situation while serving a child protection order). The officers in the present case received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another community member. On the scene, the officers learned further details indicating serious concern for Wallace’s safety and establishing multiple reasons why she would be at Smith’s residence and held against her will or in danger.” “We must next weigh the government’s interests in the officers’ entry against Smith’s right to be free from government intrusion. Smith contends that following his arrest, any emergency situation that the police officers may have believed existed inside the residence was extinguished... Here, the officers did not enter Smith’s residence as a protective sweep. As far as the officers reasonably knew at the time, Wallace could have been incapacitated within the residence in any number of ways that would prevent her from emerging from the residence following Smith’s arrest. Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone since leaving the halfway house further suggested that she was unable to respond. The fact that officers saw a face in the window undermined Smith’s claim that he was the only person in the home at the time and a reasonable officer on the scene could believe the person seen in the window required their assistance. The justification for the officers’ entry arises from their obligation to help those in danger and ensure the safety of the public. ...We agree and conclude that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering Smith’s residence to search for Wallace.” “Further, we conclude the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The officers entered Smith’s residence for the purpose of locating Wallace. They first announced their presence at the entrance of the home but received no response. Within thirty seconds, Wallace called out and indicated she was ‘in the bedroom.’ The officers went to the bedroom and began speaking with Wallace there. Smith does not argue the officers ventured beyond the bedroom once inside his home. The firearm at issue in this case was lying on the bed in the bedroom where Wallace was located. It was only partially covered by a bed sheet. The plain view doctrine therefore applies. ...Because the officers had a lawful basis for entering Smith’s apartment under their function as community caretakers, the firearm lying on the bed in the room in which Wallace was found is admissible under the plain view doctrine. AFFIRMED.” Lessons Learned: Community Caretaking is a powerful exception to the warrant requirement, but its application will be dependent on how the offense report is worded. Keep in mind that the basis for this warrant exception is that the police action is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." If applicable the report should be worded accordingly. As noted in a case where an officer finds a motorist unresponsive in a vehicle, in the early morning hours, parked at a strip mall that was closed for the night. The court stated, “Based on the deputy’s concern for Dermio’s safety the fact that Dermio was unresponsive to the deputy’s attempts to communicate with him, we hold that no unreasonable search or seizure occurred prior to the deputy opening the car door and smelling marijuana. The deputy was merely conducting a welfare check and that conduct did not violate constitutional principles." Dermio v. State, (2DCA 2013). Most community caretaking situations will arise from a 911 call for assistance. “A 911 call is a cry to the authorities for help. And until the investigating officer is reasonably satisfied that no emergency exists, he is within his legal duty to investigate such calls in a manner consistent with their emergency nature.” “Indeed it is obvious that had the patrolmen been denied entry to the apartment they would have had the right, if not the duty, to gain entry forcibly.” In the Interest of J.B., (4DCA 1993). Lastly, in those instances where the officers respond to an apparent domestic violence call for help, and the perpetrator stands at the door asserting his constitutional rights and demanding a search warrant prior to police entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had this to say in Georgia v. Randolph, (2006): “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort [a civil wrong] by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected... ” Just admit you don’t know what the hell you are talking about, as usual when it comes to the law, Mr. LWAN.
The police have no reasonable grounds at the time they enter the woman's house. Zero, nothing.
Zero, nothing. New handle, same tired shit. https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2019/10/28/winter-park-police-shoot-woman-during-well-being-check/ "My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator. It was a five minute, 34 second call that Sapp said changed her life. "She is very well armed," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun. "She's threatened suicide by cop before," he said. "I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop," Sapp told News 6. When police arrived, Sapp's ex showed them how to enter the house, according to an interview with officer Jeff Marcum obtained by News 6. "There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don't want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me," Sapp's ex-boyfriend said during the call. One officer lifted a kitchen window, leaned in and used a clothing hanger to unlock the back door, according to police. Meanwhile, Marcum was still getting information from Sapp's ex. "I'm asking if there's any weapons in the house, he tells me there's enough weapons in the house to start a revolution," Marcum said. Then the three officers made their way into the house, through the living room, and finally to Sapp's bedroom where they see her sleeping. "I'm thinking about the call suicide by cop," Marcum says during the interview. Marcum, a 23-year-veteran with the Winter Park Police Department, describes in an interview with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement what happened next. "We're yelling at her to, you know, let us see your hands, let us see your hands," Marcum said. "I didn't have my glasses on, I'm legally blind," Sapp said. "I couldn't identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me." "At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us," Marcum told investigators. Sapp admits she slept with two guns. She and her ex had been in a fight the night before and she feared it was him coming back to the house, she said. She says she had taken a sleeping pill the night before but says she did not point a gun at the officers. "Then I remember getting tazed, " Sapp said. Marcum said when Sapp wouldn't comply, one officer tazed her. "She still pointed the gun at us, then comes back toward me and then goes back toward Lt. Bologna and Officer Eller and I fired a round," he said. Sapp was shot in the shoulder. Looks like there was a pre-trial confinement hearing on 10/8/2019 https://www.ninthcircuit.org/sites/default/files/MediaCases100719.pdf https://wppd.org/about/department-divisions/operations-division/special-operations/ The shooter, Officer Jeff Marcum is now Sgt. Jeff Marcum.
All the cops had was the words of a jilted boyfriend. In the case study you posted to Ping: Did the officers knock on Sapp's door? Did the officers try her cell phone? Did the officers check to see if there was an order of protection against the boyfriend? Did the officers do anything beyond take the word of a stalker? By your own example of "reasonable grounds"...the cops didn't have any. Yeah, this is how they cover up a crime within their own ranks...give the shooter a promotion...makes him look so good at the hearing.
She's blind for the purpose of gaining sympathy, but only "legally-blind-and- able-to-use-a-gun" to justify her actions.
True. But based on the non-existent and invented facts he presented, he makes a good case.
Doesn't matter. The constitution says NO searches unless an oath was sworn. “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 She had a right to be secure in her house. They weren't allowed to enter constitutionally. But you know that if you are honest. The text means what it says. Not what some black robed asshole lies about. I know they can do what they want because we live under COLOR OF LAW. It penalizes you like real law but it isn't legitimate because it violates the Constitution. No doubt about it. None. Nada. Zero. Zip.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Your fruit stinks. It lies. It deceives. It ignores the constitution and the clear words. It is people like you that make ignoring the constitution possible. People who can't think like you for example are the problem. Not the whole problem but a large part of it.
New handle, same tired old shit. http://www.sa15.state.fl.us/stateattorney/ResourceInformation/_content/LegalEagle2016/July2016.pdf Legal Eagle A Newsletter for the Criminal Justice Community July 2016 Published by: [Extract] While it is a basic principle of the Fourth Amendment that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it follows that the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception applies when police officers engage in community caretaking function. Cady v. Dombrowski, (S.Ct. 1973). The Supreme Court has long described the “community caretaking functions” of law enforcement as activities that are ‘"totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Community caretaking functions are performed by law enforcement to “help those in danger.” “A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” The “reasonable belief” required under the community caretaker doctrine “is a less exacting standard than probable cause.” A search or seizure under the community caretaking function is reasonable if the governmental interest in law enforcement’s exercise of that function, based on specific and articulable facts, outweighs the individual’s interest in freedom from government intrusion. “Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.” Eastes v. State, (5DCA 2007). Court's Ruling: The Court of Appeals, after listing the factors known to the officers, easily found their entry into defendant’s home without a warrant lawful. “The specific, articulable facts known to the officers at the time they entered the residence include the following facts, based on [Reporter’s] calls and information from dispatch. Wallace left the halfway house and had not returned by 5:00 p.m., the time she indicated she would return. [Reporter] stated during her first call to 911 that Smith may be holding Wallace at his home against her will. [Reporter] also provided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them. The officers further learned from dispatch that other officers were unable to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ... [Reporter] report that she was ‘sure’ Smith was armed. ... Further, only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door. Wallace had not responded to any phone calls or text messages since she left the half-way house, which was over three hours prior to the time the officers entered Smith’s residence. Finally, [Officer] noticed a person’s face at the back window of Smith’s home after Smith told officers Wallace was not at his home.” “We are satisfied that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered Smith’s residence. The circumstances resemble those in Harris and Quezada, in which officers responded to potential emergency situations to aid members of the community. See United States v. Harris, (8th Cir.2014) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officers responded to a call that a gun was sliding out of the pocket of a sleeping individual at a bus station); United States v. Quezada, (8th Cir.2006) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officer encountered an emergency situation while serving a child protection order). The officers in the present case received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another community member. On the scene, the officers learned further details indicating serious concern for Wallace’s safety and establishing multiple reasons why she would be at Smith’s residence and held against her will or in danger.” “We must next weigh the government’s interests in the officers’ entry against Smith’s right to be free from government intrusion. Smith contends that following his arrest, any emergency situation that the police officers may have believed existed inside the residence was extinguished... Here, the officers did not enter Smith’s residence as a protective sweep. As far as the officers reasonably knew at the time, Wallace could have been incapacitated within the residence in any number of ways that would prevent her from emerging from the residence following Smith’s arrest. Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone since leaving the halfway house further suggested that she was unable to respond. The fact that officers saw a face in the window undermined Smith’s claim that he was the only person in the home at the time and a reasonable officer on the scene could believe the person seen in the window required their assistance. The justification for the officers’ entry arises from their obligation to help those in danger and ensure the safety of the public. ...We agree and conclude that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering Smith’s residence to search for Wallace.” “Further, we conclude the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The officers entered Smith’s residence for the purpose of locating Wallace. They first announced their presence at the entrance of the home but received no response. Within thirty seconds, Wallace called out and indicated she was ‘in the bedroom.’ The officers went to the bedroom and began speaking with Wallace there. Smith does not argue the officers ventured beyond the bedroom once inside his home. The firearm at issue in this case was lying on the bed in the bedroom where Wallace was located. It was only partially covered by a bed sheet. The plain view doctrine therefore applies. ...Because the officers had a lawful basis for entering Smith’s apartment under their function as community caretakers, the firearm lying on the bed in the room in which Wallace was found is admissible under the plain view doctrine. AFFIRMED.” Lessons Learned: Community Caretaking is a powerful exception to the warrant requirement, but its application will be dependent on how the offense report is worded. Keep in mind that the basis for this warrant exception is that the police action is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." If applicable the report should be worded accordingly. As noted in a case where an officer finds a motorist unresponsive in a vehicle, in the early morning hours, parked at a strip mall that was closed for the night. The court stated, “Based on the deputy’s concern for Dermio’s safety the fact that Dermio was unresponsive to the deputy’s attempts to communicate with him, we hold that no unreasonable search or seizure occurred prior to the deputy opening the car door and smelling marijuana. The deputy was merely conducting a welfare check and that conduct did not violate constitutional principles." Dermio v. State, (2DCA 2013). Most community caretaking situations will arise from a 911 call for assistance. “A 911 call is a cry to the authorities for help. And until the investigating officer is reasonably satisfied that no emergency exists, he is within his legal duty to investigate such calls in a manner consistent with their emergency nature.” “Indeed it is obvious that had the patrolmen been denied entry to the apartment they would have had the right, if not the duty, to gain entry forcibly.” In the Interest of J.B., (4DCA 1993). Lastly, in those instances where the officers respond to an apparent domestic violence call for help, and the perpetrator stands at the door asserting his constitutional rights and demanding a search warrant prior to police entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had this to say in Georgia v. Randolph, (2006): “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort [a civil wrong] by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected... ”
“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 She had a right to be secure in her house. They weren't allowed to enter constitutionally. But you know that if you are honest. The text means what it says. Not what some black robed asshole lies about. I know they can do what they want because we live under COLOR OF LAW. It penalizes you like real law but it isn't legitimate because it violates the Constitution. No doubt about it. None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Wrong. http://www.sa15.state.fl.us/stateattorney/ResourceInformation/_content/LegalEagle2016/July2016.pdf Legal Eagle A Newsletter for the Criminal Justice Community July 2016 Published by: [Extract] While it is a basic principle of the Fourth Amendment that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it follows that the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception applies when police officers engage in community caretaking function. Cady v. Dombrowski, (S.Ct. 1973). The Supreme Court has long described the “community caretaking functions” of law enforcement as activities that are ‘"totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Community caretaking functions are performed by law enforcement to “help those in danger.” “A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” The “reasonable belief” required under the community caretaker doctrine “is a less exacting standard than probable cause.” A search or seizure under the community caretaking function is reasonable if the governmental interest in law enforcement’s exercise of that function, based on specific and articulable facts, outweighs the individual’s interest in freedom from government intrusion. “Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.” Eastes v. State, (5DCA 2007). Court's Ruling: The Court of Appeals, after listing the factors known to the officers, easily found their entry into defendant’s home without a warrant lawful. “The specific, articulable facts known to the officers at the time they entered the residence include the following facts, based on [Reporter’s] calls and information from dispatch. Wallace left the halfway house and had not returned by 5:00 p.m., the time she indicated she would return. [Reporter] stated during her first call to 911 that Smith may be holding Wallace at his home against her will. [Reporter] also provided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them. The officers further learned from dispatch that other officers were unable to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ... [Reporter] report that she was ‘sure’ Smith was armed. ... Further, only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door. Wallace had not responded to any phone calls or text messages since she left the half-way house, which was over three hours prior to the time the officers entered Smith’s residence. Finally, [Officer] noticed a person’s face at the back window of Smith’s home after Smith told officers Wallace was not at his home.” “We are satisfied that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered Smith’s residence. The circumstances resemble those in Harris and Quezada, in which officers responded to potential emergency situations to aid members of the community. See United States v. Harris, (8th Cir.2014) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officers responded to a call that a gun was sliding out of the pocket of a sleeping individual at a bus station); United States v. Quezada, (8th Cir.2006) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officer encountered an emergency situation while serving a child protection order). The officers in the present case received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another community member. On the scene, the officers learned further details indicating serious concern for Wallace’s safety and establishing multiple reasons why she would be at Smith’s residence and held against her will or in danger.” “We must next weigh the government’s interests in the officers’ entry against Smith’s right to be free from government intrusion. Smith contends that following his arrest, any emergency situation that the police officers may have believed existed inside the residence was extinguished... Here, the officers did not enter Smith’s residence as a protective sweep. As far as the officers reasonably knew at the time, Wallace could have been incapacitated within the residence in any number of ways that would prevent her from emerging from the residence following Smith’s arrest. Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone since leaving the halfway house further suggested that she was unable to respond. The fact that officers saw a face in the window undermined Smith’s claim that he was the only person in the home at the time and a reasonable officer on the scene could believe the person seen in the window required their assistance. The justification for the officers’ entry arises from their obligation to help those in danger and ensure the safety of the public. ...We agree and conclude that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering Smith’s residence to search for Wallace.” “Further, we conclude the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The officers entered Smith’s residence for the purpose of locating Wallace. They first announced their presence at the entrance of the home but received no response. Within thirty seconds, Wallace called out and indicated she was ‘in the bedroom.’ The officers went to the bedroom and began speaking with Wallace there. Smith does not argue the officers ventured beyond the bedroom once inside his home. The firearm at issue in this case was lying on the bed in the bedroom where Wallace was located. It was only partially covered by a bed sheet. The plain view doctrine therefore applies. ...Because the officers had a lawful basis for entering Smith’s apartment under their function as community caretakers, the firearm lying on the bed in the room in which Wallace was found is admissible under the plain view doctrine. AFFIRMED.” Lessons Learned: Community Caretaking is a powerful exception to the warrant requirement, but its application will be dependent on how the offense report is worded. Keep in mind that the basis for this warrant exception is that the police action is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." If applicable the report should be worded accordingly. As noted in a case where an officer finds a motorist unresponsive in a vehicle, in the early morning hours, parked at a strip mall that was closed for the night. The court stated, “Based on the deputy’s concern for Dermio’s safety the fact that Dermio was unresponsive to the deputy’s attempts to communicate with him, we hold that no unreasonable search or seizure occurred prior to the deputy opening the car door and smelling marijuana. The deputy was merely conducting a welfare check and that conduct did not violate constitutional principles." Dermio v. State, (2DCA 2013). Most community caretaking situations will arise from a 911 call for assistance. “A 911 call is a cry to the authorities for help. And until the investigating officer is reasonably satisfied that no emergency exists, he is within his legal duty to investigate such calls in a manner consistent with their emergency nature.” “Indeed it is obvious that had the patrolmen been denied entry to the apartment they would have had the right, if not the duty, to gain entry forcibly.” In the Interest of J.B., (4DCA 1993). Lastly, in those instances where the officers respond to an apparent domestic violence call for help, and the perpetrator stands at the door asserting his constitutional rights and demanding a search warrant prior to police entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had this to say in Georgia v. Randolph, (2006): “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort [a civil wrong] by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected... ”
What are you trying to say...new handle...what? And why do you stand with stalkers and abusers?
Just another way to override the 4th. If tyrants don't have a law to justify their evil actions...they'll just make a new law that does. Gov. Blackface and Co. are doing that now in Virginia...and they are probably looking for talent like you...better hurry before misterwhite gets your job.
I reject that you are that terminally stupid. Why do you spew bullshit about the cops being invaders, stalkers or abusers? IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JOHNATHAN EASTES, JULY TERM 2007 Opinion filed July 13, 2007 James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Bill McCollum, Attorney General, EVANDER, J. [...] On appeal, Eastes first argues that the trial court erred in failing to exclude any evidence obtained subsequent to Officer Wical's warrantless entry into his apartment. Although it is unclear as to what evidence Eastes requested to be suppressed, we will address the legality of Officer Wical's entry into the apartment. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry into a residence when the officer reasonably believes that a person within is in need of immediate aid. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 2005). Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006). The officer's search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393. Thus, an officer must cease a search once it is determined that no emergency exists. Seibert, 923 So. 2d at 468. In the present case, Officer Wical had a reasonable basis to believe that a medical emergency existed at the time he entered Eastes' apartment. The officers were responding to a "disturbance, possible suicidal person" call. Eastes had blood on both arms from his forearms to his fingers. There was broken glass on his apartment floor and his furniture was in disarray. Eastes made no attempt to dispel Wical's concerns for his (Eastes') safety at any time prior to Wical's entry into the apartment. The concerns that justified Officer Wical's entry into the apartment were not alleviated prior to Eastes' battery of Officer Ashouri. After entering Eastes' apartment, Wical observed Eastes' arms were still bleeding and there was blood on the microwave door, on a table, and on the floor. Additionally, Eastes continued to refuse to provide any information to Wical, which might alleviate Wical's belief that Eastes was a threat to harm himself. The evidence amply supports the trial court's conclusion that Officer Wical had legally entered Eastes' apartment. [...]
Why do you perpetuate bullshit? IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA JOHNATHAN EASTES, JULY TERM 2007 Opinion filed July 13, 2007 James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Bill McCollum, Attorney General, EVANDER, J. [...] On appeal, Eastes first argues that the trial court erred in failing to exclude any evidence obtained subsequent to Officer Wical's warrantless entry into his apartment. Although it is unclear as to what evidence Eastes requested to be suppressed, we will address the legality of Officer Wical's entry into the apartment. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry into a residence when the officer reasonably believes that a person within is in need of immediate aid. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 2005). Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006). The officer's search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393. Thus, an officer must cease a search once it is determined that no emergency exists. Seibert, 923 So. 2d at 468. In the present case, Officer Wical had a reasonable basis to believe that a medical emergency existed at the time he entered Eastes' apartment. The officers were responding to a "disturbance, possible suicidal person" call. Eastes had blood on both arms from his forearms to his fingers. There was broken glass on his apartment floor and his furniture was in disarray. Eastes made no attempt to dispel Wical's concerns for his (Eastes') safety at any time prior to Wical's entry into the apartment. The concerns that justified Officer Wical's entry into the apartment were not alleviated prior to Eastes' battery of Officer Ashouri. After entering Eastes' apartment, Wical observed Eastes' arms were still bleeding and there was blood on the microwave door, on a table, and on the floor. Additionally, Eastes continued to refuse to provide any information to Wical, which might alleviate Wical's belief that Eastes was a threat to harm himself. The evidence amply supports the trial court's conclusion that Officer Wical had legally entered Eastes' apartment.
Yeah, and the targets were not cops in full uniform, but just blobs. Blobs bad. She will be given the same opportunity to justify her actions as Mr. LWAN was given to justify his actions.
Yes, it will prove persuasive in his Court of the Imagination, with an imaginary anarchist judge, and twelve anarcho-libertarian jurors.
Courts rule the opposite all the time. Then they vote on stuff. Then it comes up again and other judges say other things. When they get it wrong it is color of law. It still penalizes you it still incarcerates you. But it is truly not a right decision because anyone with a third or fourth grade education can see it violates the very plane words of the amendment. Color of law. Case dismissed.
It looks like this is just a game to you. You've got nothing better to do with your life than to bait people into arguments that you have no intention of honestly engaging. Anthem posted on 2019-12-18 3:54:23 ET #67. To: Anthem (#59) Oh heck, just leave, rehandle yet again and come back as juvenile dumbshit. nolu chan posted on 2019-12-18 18:12:36 ET I'll leave it to others to decide whose post is that of a juvenile dumbshit.
Yes, it a tough choice to make between your bllshit pulled out of your ass, and the actual law, as quoted in a relevant court opinion. You can continue to act like a dumbshit and remove all doubt. Anthem #58: “Are we loosing track of the fact that these guys invaded her house, with no probable cause....” Police officers responding to a report of an armed woman contemplating suicide by cop, who reasonably believe someone is inside who needs help, are not invaders, and according to the law, they need neither a warrant, court order, nor probable cause of a crime, to enter a residence. Whether there is an actual emergency is immaterial. People are free to believe you or the lying laws and courts. It can explain the law to you, but I cannot understand it for you. JOHNATHAN EASTES, JULY TERM 2007 Opinion filed July 13, 2007 James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Bill McCollum, Attorney General, EVANDER, J. [...] On appeal, Eastes first argues that the trial court erred in failing to exclude any evidence obtained subsequent to Officer Wical's warrantless entry into his apartment. Although it is unclear as to what evidence Eastes requested to be suppressed, we will address the legality of Officer Wical's entry into the apartment. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry into a residence when the officer reasonably believes that a person within is in need of immediate aid. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 2005). Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home. Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006). The officer's search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393. Thus, an officer must cease a search once it is determined that no emergency exists. Seibert, 923 So. 2d at 468. In the present case, Officer Wical had a reasonable basis to believe that a medical emergency existed at the time he entered Eastes' apartment. The officers were responding to a "disturbance, possible suicidal person" call. Eastes had blood on both arms from his forearms to his fingers. There was broken glass on his apartment floor and his furniture was in disarray. Eastes made no attempt to dispel Wical's concerns for his (Eastes') safety at any time prior to Wical's entry into the apartment. The concerns that justified Officer Wical's entry into the apartment were not alleviated prior to Eastes' battery of Officer Ashouri. After entering Eastes' apartment, Wical observed Eastes' arms were still bleeding and there was blood on the microwave door, on a table, and on the floor. Additionally, Eastes continued to refuse to provide any information to Wical, which might alleviate Wical's belief that Eastes was a threat to harm himself. The evidence amply supports the trial court's conclusion that Officer Wical had legally entered Eastes' apartment.
Do you bother to read the hail mary desperate legal lunges that you post? the officer reasonably believes Apparently recruiting for low IQ's and requiring reasoning capabilities isn't some sort of psychotic cognitive dissonance on your part. that a person within is in need of immediate aid. And they gave it to this sleeping 49 year old Registered Nurse (RN), good and hard.
Yes, and unlike the bullshit you post, my "desperate legal lunges" are on-point court opinions and relevant statute laws. Apparently, such are not amenable to your IQ.
Based on the word of a vindictive ex-boyfriend. Same shit the cops pull when the rely on so-called "confidential informants". Sure - why not? I mean that's what cops do - lie.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Reasonable grounds? You frigging copsucker - they went in based on what the woman's ex-boyfriend said. ...the entire incident began because her disgruntled ex-boyfriend used a police welfare check to deliberately harm her. It worked. “He used this wellness check as a way to put me in harm’s way,” she said. Indeed, instead of actually investigating the situation by knocking on the door, calling her, or any other number of non-violent means, cops helped this man — who did not live in the house and could have been anyone — break in to her home and then shoot this woman on his behalf. “My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator. Sapp says these were all lies. If she actually wanted to kill herself, she could’ve used one of the two guns which she regularly sleeps with. She did not. “She is very well armed,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun. “She’s threatened suicide by cop before,” he said. There is no record of Sapp ever attempting to commit suicide by herself or by cop before. Also, if she was trying to commit suicide by cop that night — she would have had to call the cops. She did not call the police. “I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop,” Sapp told News 6. Nevertheless, police show up to the home and start taking directions from Sapp’s ex, who did not live there. “There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don’t want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend said during the call. When police arrived on scene, Sapp’s ex showed them how to break into the home and they followed his directions.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Eastes v. Florida, supra [Excerpt]
Eastes v. Florida, supra [Excerpt] Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home. Riggs, 918 So. 2d at 281. Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006). The officer's search must be "strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation." Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393. Thus, an officer must cease a search once it is determined that no emergency exists. Seibert, 923 So. 2d at 468.
I could have been Attila the Hun, and two of his henchmen. You support the right of a blind woman to pick up a gun and aim it at an unidentified target because she cannot see well enough to identify cops in full uniform.
She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not.
In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.
That is a death sentence.
A blind woman challenging three armed cops to a gunfight is as close as she is going to get to a death sentence. Especially if she has been reported to have been threatening to commit suicide by cop.
#55. To: Pinguinite (#54)
standard to a blind woman
#56. To: Pinguinite, nolu chan (#54)
#57. To: A K A Stone (#56)
#58. To: Pinguinite (#57)
#59. To: nolu chan (#52)
#60. To: Anthem (#58)
#61. To: Anthem (#58)
Good Lord, they should have backed off immediately upon finding her asleep in her bed, and very gently called for her attention from a safe distance (outside her bedroom).
#62. To: nolu chan (#27)
I reject watchmen
#63. To: nolu chan (#47)
(Edited)
What will the bullet hit if it just misses, or cleanly passes through the intended target?
#64. To: A K A Stone (#53)
The cops could think their life was in danger too. But they didn't get a search warrant. They were wrong coming in someones home without a warrant.
Welfare Check
#65. To: misterwhite (#63)
Who cares? No one is supposed to be in her bedroom -- not family, friends, neighbors, police -- so it's a free-fire zone.
Hearing date: 01/13/2020 9:00 AM
Time slot: Room 9-a On The 9th Floor
Location: State Of Florida - Vs - Sapp, Bobbie Fischer
Judge: Roche, Renee A
Status: Cancelled
#66. To: Anthem, Pinguinite (#58)
Are we loosing track of the fact that these guys invaded her house, with no probable cause
#67. To: Anthem (#59)
It looks like this is just a game to you.
#68. To: watchman (#62)
But stalker ex-boyfriends who skulk around a former girlfriend's house seeking to get her harmed...you accept those.
#69. To: Pinguinite (#54)
Let me help you out by appending:
Office of the State Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
B. Krischer, Editor Community Caretaking: The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.’” Florida v. Jardines, (2013).
Admit you have a double standard and I'll consider the conversation closed.
#70. To: nolu chan (#68)
having reasonable grounds
#71. To: watchman (#70)
The police have no reasonable grounds at the time they enter the woman's house.
It happened 8 a.m. on a Sunday in September 2017. While Sapp was fast asleep in the Winter Park home she rented, her ex-boyfriend was calling Winter Park police.
10/8/2019
8:30
Jordan
9-A Pretrial Conf.
Sapp, Bobbie
2017-CF-12052-AO
#72. To: nolu chan, Pinguinite (#71)
Meanwhile, Marcum was still getting information from Sapp's ex.
The Court of Appeals, after listing the FACTORS KNOWN to the officers,
provided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them.
officers were unable to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ...
only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door.
Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone
The shooter, Officer Jeff Marcum is now Sgt. Jeff Marcum.
#73. To: nolu chan (#65)
And there is the natural law right of legally blind people to aim guns at blobs.
#74. To: nolu chan (#48)
You hypothetical has no basis.
#75. To: nolu chan (#64)
They were not there to search for evidence of a crime.
#76. To: misterwhite (#73)
She's blind for the purpose of gaining sympathy, but only "legally-blind-and- able-to-use-a-gun" to justify her actions.
#77. To: watchman (#72)
All the cops had was the words of a jilted boyfriend.
Office of the State Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
B. Krischer, Editor Community Caretaking: The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.’” Florida v. Jardines, (2013).
#78. To: A K A Stone (#75)
(Edited)
The constitution says NO searches unless an oath was sworn.
Office of the State Attorney
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
B. Krischer, Editor Community Caretaking: The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.’” Florida v. Jardines, (2013).
#79. To: nolu chan (#77)
New handle
#80. To: nolu chan, misterwhite (#77)
Community Caretaking
#81. To: watchman (#79)
What are you trying to say...new handle...what?
And why do you stand with stalkers and abusers?
FIFTH DISTRICT
Appellant, v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Case No. 5D06-3583
________________/
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County, George W. Maxwell III , Judge.
David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Tallahassee, and
Douglas T. Squire,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.
#82. To: watchman, misterwhite (#80)
Just another way to override the 4th.
FIFTH DISTRICT
Appellant, v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Case No. 5D06-3583
________________/
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County, George W. Maxwell III , Judge.
David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Tallahassee, and
Douglas T. Squire,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.
#83. To: misterwhite (#73)
She's blind for the purpose of gaining sympathy, but only "legally-blind-and- able-to-use-a-gun" to justify her actions.
#84. To: misterwhite (#74)
True. But based on the non-existent and invented facts he presented, he makes a good case.
#85. To: nolu chan (#78)
#86. To: nolu chan (#67)
#59. To: nolu chan (#52)
#87. To: Anthem (#86)
I'll leave it to others to decide whose post is that of a juvenile dumbshit.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
Appellant, v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
Case No. 5D06-3583
________________/
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Brevard County, George W. Maxwell III , Judge.
David S. Morgan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Tallahassee, and
Douglas T. Squire,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
#88. To: nolu chan (#87)
#89. To: Anthem (#88)
Do you bother to read the hail mary desperate legal lunges that you post?
#90. To: nolu chan (#64)
A welfare check, also known as a wellness check, occurs when law enforcement officers respond to a request to check on the safety and well-being of a person
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#91. To: nolu chan (#66)
Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#92. To: Deckard (#90)
Based on the word of a vindictive ex-boyfriend.
Furthermore, it is immaterial whether an actual emergency existed. The test is whether the officer reasonably believed an emergency existed at the time of the warrantless entry. Seibert v. State, 923 So. 2d 460, 468 (Fla.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 198 (2006).
#93. To: Deckard (#91)
Reasonable grounds?
On appeal, Eastes first argues that the trial court erred in failing to exclude any evidence obtained subsequent to Officer Wical's warrantless entry into his apartment. Although it is unclear as to what evidence Eastes requested to be suppressed, we will address the legality of Officer Wical's entry into the apartment. The Fourth Amendment does not bar a police officer from making a warrantless entry into a residence when the officer reasonably believes that a person within is in need of immediate aid. See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978); Riggs v. State, 918 So. 2d 274, 279 (Fla. 2005).
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]