I stumbled across this case while reading the Daily Journal. The net result of the case is that the defendant was permitted to sue the police for a civil rights violation with respect to their entry into his home without a warrant. The attorney reporting the case represents the police in civil rights case and found the Ninth Circuit's decision to be outrageous; I find the police conduct to be outrageous. Here is the statement of facts:
After discussing the circumstances, Officers Ericson and Mickelson decided to enter the residence: they continued to announce themselves and requested a response from the occupant as they entered. Officer Mickelson found Lockett in bed and began to question him. Lockett said that he did not require medical attention and that he did not answer the door because he was asleep. Officer Ericson said that Lockett could not have been asleep for very long because he had just crashed his car nearby; Lockett responded "I didn't crash, I just got stuck." The Officers asked Lockett to remove the blankets covering him, which revealed that he was fully dressed and also revealed a strong smell of alcohol. The Officers further observed that Lockett's eyes were red and watery. Officer Ericson asked Lockett if he owned the car at issue and he said yes. Officer Ericson also asked whether Lockett had drunk any alcohol since returning home and he responded no. Officer Ericson then requested that Lockett perform field sobriety tests, which Lockett did not successfully complete. At this time, Officer Ericson arrested Lockett for driving while under the influence of alcohol and took him to the Mt. Shasta Area CHP office where he underwent a breathalyser test. The result of the breathalyser was .17/.17.Lockett v. Ericson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18104, 3-5 (9th Cir. Cal. Aug. 31, 2011)
The county prosecutor filed a misdemeanor complaint against Lockett on March 9, 2005, alleging one count of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs in violation of California Vehicle Code section 23152(a), and one count of driving at .08 (or above) blood alcohol level in violation of California Vehicle Code section 23152(b). In the ensuing state court proceeding, Lockett filed a motion to suppress under California Penal Code section 1538.5, arguing that the evidence supporting the State's case against him was seized without a warrant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding that the Officers were "reasonable in [their] suspicion of exigent circumstances regarding the well being of [Lockett]" and acted "properly in [their] role as a community caretaker in entering [Lockett's] residence to determine the need for assistance." The court further found that "[o]nce inside the residence . . . the officer[s] made plain sight observations which gave rise to probable cause to arrest [Lockett] for driving under the influence."
In other words, the police entered the home without a warrant for a misdemeanor vehicle code violation. Then, they persist in trying to run up their DUI arrest score after the citizen says he doesn't need their assistance.
But instead of tossing this obvious violation of constitutional rights out of court, the trial judge decides to buy the police officers' obvious perjury about concern for the person's safety.
Even if we take everything at face value, there is something wildly lacking in wisdom and judgment in this Javert-style zeal in going after someone in their home in bed on a misdemeanor. Insofar as the state has a right to intrude on a person's home, they really should do it for serious matters, not for the million and one petty laws that clutter the lawbooks.
If the police can't be induced to show better discretion about the use of their valuable time by outraged citizens with shotguns - which, of course, law-abiding citizens should never resort, but then the police should treat citizens as citizens rather than presumptive criminals - then perhaps the threat of liability under Section 1983 may encourage a cost/benefit analysis vis a vis intruding into someone's home over a misdemeanor.
Once again the Prophet Gilbert was pointing to the future when he observed that ""we do not get good laws to restrain bad people. We get good people to restrain bad laws."
G.K. Chesterton, Thoughts around Koepenick (1915).
Posts
