Police err over warrant?

U.S. Supreme Court listens to arguments in Brigham City case

By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News
Published: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:15 p.m. MDT
E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments from Utah attorneys Monday and now must determine when the law should prohibit police officers from entering a home without a warrant — even if they witness violence inside.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantees people the right to be secure in their homes. The Utah lawyers argued that Brigham City police officers who entered a home in July 2000 and made arrests after they witnessed a teenager punch an adult in the jaw did not violate the Constitution, while the attorney for those arrested said that police had no right to be there.

"Things can change in seconds," Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Gray told the nine justices Monday. "Things can turn deadly."

But Michael Studebaker, the lawyer for Charles Stuart, Shayne Taylor and Sandra Taylor, who were arrested during the 2000 incident, said the facts in this case did not justify police entering the home.

"Where is the line drawn?" he said. "It needs to be more serious than a loud party."

Studebaker said he does not want to see officers regularly entering houses without a warrant just because they see something going on inside. He said he could not see the court prohibiting officers from entering a home in life-threatening situations.

Story continues below
At 3 a.m. on July 23, 2000, four Brigham City police officers went to a residence after hearing complaints about a loud party, according to court documents. They heard noises that sounded like a fight, including yells of "Stop, stop," and "Get off me." They saw four adults restraining a teenager against a refrigerator through a window. The teen broke a hand free and punched one of the adults in the jaw, drawing blood. That prompted one of the officers to open a screen door and yell "Police," although no one heard anything because of the ongoing fight, the court documents state.

The officers then entered the house and eventually made arrests after the occupants became hostile to the police being inside the house, according to the court documents.

But Studebaker argued Monday that the violence had stopped before the officers entered the house, so they knew what was going on and should have stayed outside.

Justice David Souter commented, "It's over until someone throws the next punch."

"They don't know what's going to happen next," Souter added.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought up officers' ability in Utah to get a phone warrant and questioned Gray on why they did not do that. But Gray said time was of the essence in the situation.

Gray said that the state wants officers to rescue people from harm, not wait until they would have to call for medical help. He said sticking to a lower court's opinion, which threw out the arrests because the police had no warrant, would force officers to choose between the roles of caretaker and officers of the law.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.