SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Something is wrong when asking for help leads to the police ransacking your home. Found on techdirt is this story for our times: Appeals Court To Cops: If You 'Don't Have Time' For 'Constitutional Bullshit,' You Don't Get Immunity:
A disabled vet with PTSD accidentally called a suicide prevention hotline when intending to dial the Veterans Crisis Line. Within hours, he was dealing with DC Metro's finest, dispatched to handle an attempted suicide. This brief quote from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals opinion [PDF] -- part of veteran Matthew Corrigan's first conversation with responding officers -- sets the tone for the next several hours of Constitutional violations.
The officer who had asked for his key told him: "I don't have time to play this constitutional bullshit. We're going to break down your door. You're going to have to pay for a new door." Corrigan Dep. 94:15–18. Corrigan responded, "It looks like I'm paying for a new door, then. I'm not giving you consent to go into my place." Id. 94:19–21.
This is as much respect as the responding officers had for Corrigan's Constitutional rights. The rest of the opinion shows how they handled the supposed suicide case with the same level of care.
From there it gets worse, much worse.
[Continues...]
The opening of the opinion recounts just how dangerous it is to talk to nearly anyone linked to the government about your personal problems.
Matthew Corrigan is an Army Reservist and an Iraq war veteran who, in February 2010, was also an employee of the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. On the night of February 2, 2010, suffering from sleep deprivation, he inadvertently phoned the National Suicide Hotline when dialing a number he thought to be a Veterans Crisis Line. When he told the Hotline volunteer that he was a veteran diagnosed with PTSD, she asked whether he had been drinking or using drugs and whether he owned guns. Corrigan assured her that he was only using his prescribed medication and was not under the influence of any illicit drugs or alcohol; he admitted that he owned guns. The volunteer told him to "put [the guns] down," and Corrigan responded, "That's crazy, I don't have them out." Corrigan Dep. 56:2–5.
Despite Corrigan's assurances that his guns were safely stored, the volunteer repeatedly asked him to tell her "the guns are down." Id. 56:2–14. When asked if he intended to hurt himself or if he intended to "harm others," he responded "no" to both questions. Id. 69:6–18. Frustrated, Corrigan eventually hung up and turned off his phone, took his prescribed medication, and went to sleep. Id. 56:10–14; 70:6–7. The Hotline volunteer proceeded to notify the MPD.
The whole story is well-worth reading, but in a nutshell: The vet finally comes out of his home, locks the door, does not resist, is handcuffed, does not give permission for a search, and the police then proceed to knock down his door, perform a search without a warrant, and then come back five hours later to perform another search, still without a warrant, and thoroughly ransacks his home. The techdirt story concludes:
Better yet, the "screw your Constitution" officers have had their immunity stripped.
Because it was (and is) clearly established that law enforcement officers must have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an exigency justifies a warrantless search of a home, and because no reasonable officer could have concluded such a basis existed for the second more intrusive search, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity across the board.
"Objectively reasonable" is not a high bar. But the MPD never had any intent of reaching it. The officer's statement that there was "no time" for the Constitution made that very clear. The failure to find anything in plain view during the first sweep was treated as an excuse to turn a cooperative man's (cooperative except for consent to search) upside down until officers could find something to excuse their steamrolling of the Fourth Amendment. They figured what they uncovered would save them after the fact. That's the ends justifying the means and that's precisely what the Fourth Amendment is there to protect against.
So, it seems that justice for the vet might finally win out in this case, but only after having his home upended and a long, drawn-out court case.
What [else] is a citizen to do?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:55AM
> So, it seems that justice for the vet might finally win out in this case, but only after having his home upended and a long, drawn-out court case.
Under any system there will be fuck-ups. That is just life in a world where perfection is impossible. What matters is how the system responds to fuck ups.
It sounds like the system is doing the right thing - holding the officers to account for their fuckups.
I hope the plaintiff gets a big fat check to compensate him for having to deal with those fuckups and the officers in charge are perma-fired from police work.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:26AM
It sounds like the system is doing the right thing - holding the officers to account for their fuckups.
But it's also a system which almost never does the right thing; this is an exception to the rule.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Vokbain on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:50AM
Precedent, even a single precedent, can go a long way!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:18AM
It is only precedent in the circuit in which it was decided (DC Circuit) -- in all others, it is "persuasive authority" which means other courts are totally free to follow the opinion, or ignore it. Secondly, it was decided on November 8, 2016. It can still be appealed.
Don't put too much stock in this meaning the police state in which we live, is really going to start doing the right thing.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Saturday November 19 2016, @04:04PM
Secondly, it was decided on November 8, 2016. It can still be appealed.
Which brings up an interesting conundrum. Sure, the PD could appeal it, but the risk is that it could be affirmed at a higher level, making it a precedent in a broader range of jurisdictions.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:23PM
That is true and with the current court makeup, it's a real risk. It's a good thing Garland hasn't been appointed because he's usually pro-cop and that would change the calculus.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @03:11PM
Best case, he gets a check, 2 officers are in police department timeout, and no police officer will utter the words 'Constitutional bullshit' in a similar situation.
More likely, he just gets a check in exchange for not going after the officers and life goes on.
I'd like to hope that this is not the normal case.
Normally, the cops don't come to most homes in force.
But when they do, unfortunately this appears to be the least of the usual outcomes.
Somehow we went from a show of overwhelming force prevents the need to use any force
to the arrival of overwhelming force provides an excuse to unnecessarily use some.
Until departments give promotions for not using force and demotions for using force, court cases won't help.
The ruling looks pretty limited in scope.
Perhaps if MPD appeals to the Supreme court and looses with a wider ruling?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:34AM
> But it's also a system which almost never does the right thing; this is an exception to the rule.
Don't be fooled by media coverage. You don't normally hear about the cases where the system works because that's not newsworthy. For example, there is a registry that a lot of states (in the South no less) use to track cops who are fired or who quit before being fired in order to prevent them from being hired somewhere else. Its not (yet) comprehensive, we really need it to be nationwide, but there are literally zero reports each time a fired cop is refused employment at a different department because they are on the do-not-hire registry.
I am not trying to downplay the problems. There are a lot of problems. But the successes go unreported because they are boring. That doesn't mean there aren't successes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:27AM
Firing and blacklisting from police work is insufficient.
This is an agent of the government denying someone their civil rights under the auspices of government authority. Huge civil damages and prison time should be a minimum, and if I had my druthers, revoking their citizenship.
It is an awesome responsibility to wield government power, especially as directly, and with authority to use lethal force as police. It should not be taken as cavalierly as I don't have time to play this constitutional bullshit, and the graveness of the situation should be impressed upon cops that it is ONLY by the constitution do they have this authority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:32PM
> Firing and blacklisting from police work is insufficient.
Oh quit your grandstanding.
Nobody ever said it was. But is an important part and when it works, nobody talks about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:58PM
No one talks about it because it amounts to a slap on the wrist for violating the public trust.
Poor dear, now you don't get to play with a badge and a gun, and are relegated to being a walmart greeter just like a million other schlubs who never did any thing wrong.
(Score: 1) by Frost on Saturday November 19 2016, @10:00PM
This is an agent of the government denying someone their civil rights under the auspices of government authority. Huge civil damages and prison time should be a minimum, and if I had my druthers, revoking their citizenship.
Deprivation of civil rights under color of law [cornell.edu]:
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
"... sentenced to death." I guess that's one way to revoke citizenship!
(Score: 1) by Demena on Sunday November 20 2016, @12:36AM
The only (arguably) legal way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:38PM
but there are literally zero reports each time a fired cop is refused employment at a different department because they are on the do-not-hire registry.
Why should it be reported? That is exactly what should happen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:15AM
So long as blue lives matter more than any others, nothing will change.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:36AM
It's accountability that is the problem. The guy blows his head off after the cops learn of his suicidal threats and they get in trouble for not stopping it. Do you think they wanted to deal with PTSD guy that didn't want help anyway? If you want "Go away, I don't want your help." to mean anything, then stop blaming them for going away.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Saturday November 19 2016, @10:20AM
there's the problem, tyrants thinking its the government's responsibility to prevent people from exercising their fundamental human right of self-sovereignty. people are free to do whatever they want with their own bodies and lives, including end them, so long as they aren't harming others and fully understand the consequences and repercussions of their actions. the only "help" the police should be giving suicidal people is offering them the option of inert gas asphixiation so they dont have to resort to shit that makes a huge, disgusting, expensive mess that inconveniences a lot of people, like blowing their head off, and maybe making the suicidal person sign a consent form affirming that nobody else is liable or responsible for their death and that its of their own free will after careful deliberation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @12:10PM
due to the possibility of unpaid debts.
That is the primary reason suicide is, and at least in the US has been illegal for 200 or more years.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:38PM
I agree with you. If someone WANTS help, then they should be offered help. If it's suicide, domestic violence, or whatever else and whoever the "victim" is doesn't want help--then get the heck out of their life. Without the overriding mandate that they get into trouble if you don't unnecessarily meddle in their life a lot of things like this wouldn't happen.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday November 19 2016, @10:48PM
domestic violence and abuse are a bit of a different issue, because Stockholms is a real thing. they may actually want and need help but have convinced themselves otherwise due to extensive gaslighting or helplessly being trapped or something. "for their own good" is typically how tyrants justify themselves and the atrocities and human rights violations they commit against others, but sometimes stuff really does need to be done "for their own good" (mandatory education comes to mind as one of those things). its a very tricky subject, like who gets to decide what legitimately needs to be forced on people for their own good? how do you determine benevolence from tyranny?
for things like abuse/domestic violence, maybe the approach should be something like mandatorily separating them for a while and then if the victim chooses to go back to the abuser of their own free will after time apart then they are consenting to further abuse, so from there its nobody else's business. personally the way i see it is that if the victim sticks around after the very first instance of violence or abuse, they're consenting to further violence and abuse, but i'm told its not that simple an issue or situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 20 2016, @02:05AM
mandatory education comes to mind as one of those things
The problem with mandatory education is that it's often not education at all, but rote memorization and teaching conformity. We should encourage alternative means of getting an education such as self-learning or homeschooling while also improving the public school system. We shouldn't just force everyone to attend public schools.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:30PM
What a bizzare apologia.
Did you read the story? Because your excuse has nothing to do with the facts.
He came out on the porch and peacefully surrendered to the police without incident. The problem is that they insisted on searching his house afterwards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @07:43PM
The guy blows his head off after the cops learn of his suicidal threats and they get in trouble for not stopping it.
Do they, really? So long as they make a reasonable effort, I don't see why they would. And I certainly haven't seen any cases of that happening.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:36AM
One or two cops doing something wrong could be classified as a "fuck up". This seems to be an entire department in total ignorance and/or contempt of the constitution. That's not a fuck up in a system, it's a fucked up system. Wipe and reinstall.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:27PM
Maybe you don't know this, but there are ~15,400 police departments in the US. [politifact.com] Just as it is inevitable that some officers will be fuckups, it is also inevitable that there will be some entire departments that are fuckups. If for no other reason than it only takes a couple of fuckups in charge to crater an entire department.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by RamiK on Saturday November 19 2016, @02:32PM
If one officer is bad, everyone in their department knows about it. And if their commanding officer (chief? whatever they call them) claims not to have known about it, they're either incompetent or lying.
If you think firing the whole department is bad, we can go with decimation. Have all the department personal draw straws and send 10% home.
Make a rule out of this, and I assure you next time, the officer's own colleagues will be the ones to stop and report him.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 19 2016, @11:35PM
It is not unheard of to fire an entire police department.
http://www.ky3.com/content/news/Lockwood-votes-to-dissolve-police-department-394061641.html [ky3.com]
http://fox8.com/2016/02/13/madison-village-to-dissolve-police-department/ [fox8.com]
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/pine-lawn-votes-to-dissolve-police-department/article_d4b2bb94-f000-58aa-a21b-9af492267084.html [stltoday.com]
http://www.wsaz.com/content/news/Inez-dissolved-police-department-382950111.html [wsaz.com]
There are multiple reasons why a police department might be dissolved - from financial considerations, to corruption, to incompetence, and possibly more. But, it does happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 19 2016, @03:53PM
As long as you are dreaming dream big.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday November 19 2016, @05:07PM
The officer's actions were not a fuck-up, they were malicious. The fuckup is that they haven't been weeded out of the department yet, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that being changed.
The judge here is doing the right thing in the matter at hand, but he doesn't have the authority to address the fuck-up./