We’re printing today’s Supreme Court ruling in full for one reason only: because it’s perfectly obvious to any sane person that these Burbank cops were lying through their teeth about what transpired outside of that house the day in question.
Worse, that they lied in order to cover up what was clearly an illegal Fourth Amendment violation on this family.
Their contentions are totally preposterous– which is why this family went to such great lengths to fight them in court. When the father made a scene in the living room about them being there, the cops knew that they’d better cook up a pretextual, after-the-fact story to clear themselves. So they made it fearsome.
Unfortunately, most judges take police officers at their word these days, which is what this victory was based on. They always give great deference to the police. That’s why it pays for cops like Burbank’s to lie all the time in court. They always get believed by the gullible and the corrupt.
Or the lazy.
Just read the whole story. It’s completely ridiculous. And it wasn’t just Ryburn who was obviously lying about what happened, or his phony “fears.” The Bell-Jeff principal was too, as a clear excuse to get the Burbank police involved in the first place. And he’s not immune from any further legal action, even if the cops are.
Keep in mind also that the original accusations were completely untrue as well– even nutty– and that only in Burbank would a mother protecting her child from the overreach of the local police department be considered “odd behavior,” let alone grounds to invade a house.
We’ve italicized the insane-fascist stuff. The saddest thing here is that the BPD and its defenders don’t even realize how nutty and out-of-line their behavior was that day. They think it’s just great.
This kind of behavior happens all the time in towns like Burbank, and they get away with it because they’re habitual liars. It’s an old, old story.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DARIN RYBURN, ET AL. v. GEORGE R. HUFF, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 11–208. Decided January 23, 2012
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners Darin Ryburn and Edmundo Zepeda, along with two other officers from the Burbank Police Department, responded to a call from Bellarmine-Jefferson High School in Burbank, California. When the officers arrived at the school, the principal informed them that a student, Vincent Huff, was rumored to have written a letter
threatening to “shoot up” the school. App. to Pet. for Cert.
2. The principal reported that many parents, after hearing the rumor, had decided to keep their children at home. Ibid. The principal expressed concern for the safety of her students and requested that the officers investigate thethreat. Id., at 42, 54–55.
In the course of conducting interviews with the principaland two of Vincent’s classmates, the officers learned that Vincent had been absent from school for two days and that he was frequently subjected to bullying. Id., at 2. The officers additionally learned that one of Vincent’s classmates believed that Vincent was capable of carrying out the alleged threat. Id., at 44. The officers found Vincent’s absences from school and his history of being subjected tobullying as cause for concern. The officers had received training on targeted school violence and were aware that
these characteristics are common among perpetrators ofschool shootings. Id., at 56–58, 63.
The officers decided to continue the investigation by interviewing Vincent. When the officers arrived at Vincent’s house, Officer Zepeda knocked on the door and announced several times that the officers were with the
Burbank Police Department. No one answered the door or otherwise responded to Officer Zepeda’s knocks. Sergeant Ryburn then called the home telephone. The officers could hear the phone ringing inside the house, but no one answered. Id., at 2.
Sergeant Ryburn next tried calling the cell phone of Vincent’s mother, Mrs. Huff. When Mrs. Huff answered the phone, Sergeant Ryburn identified himself and inquired about her location. Mrs. Huff informed Sergeant Ryburn that she was inside the house. Sergeant Ryburnthen inquired about Vincent’s location, and Mrs. Huff informed him that Vincent was inside with her. SergeantRyburn told Mrs. Huff that he and the other officers wereoutside and requested to speak with her, but Mrs. Huffhung up the phone. Id., at 2–3.
One or two minutes later, Mrs. Huff and Vincent walked out of the house and stood on the front steps. Officer Zepeda advised Vincent that he and the other officers werethere to discuss the threats. Vincent, apparently aware of the rumor that was circulating at his school, responded, “I can’t believe you’re here for that.” Id., at 3. Sergeant Ryburn asked Mrs. Huff if they could continue the discussion inside the house, but she refused. Ibid. In Sergeant Ryburn’s experience as a juvenile bureau sergeant, it was“extremely unusual” for a parent to decline an officer’s request to interview a juvenile inside. Id., at 3, 73–74. Sergeant Ryburn also found it odd that Mrs. Huff never asked the officers the reason for their visit. Id., at 73–74.
After Mrs. Huff declined Sergeant Ryburn’s request tocontinue the discussion inside, Sergeant Ryburn asked her if there were any guns in the house. Mrs. Huff responded by “immediately turn[ing] around and r[unning] into the house.” Id., at 3. Sergeant Ryburn, who was “scared because [he] didn’t know what was in that house” and had “seen too many officers killed,” entered the house behindher. Id., at 75. Vincent entered the house behind Sergeant Ryburn, and Officer Zepeda entered after Vincent. Officer Zepeda was concerned about “officer safety” and did not want Sergeant Ryburn to enter the house alone. Id., at 3. The two remaining officers, who had been standing out of earshot while Sergeant Ryburn and Officer Zepeda talked to Vincent and Mrs. Huff, entered the houselast, on the assumption that Mrs. Huff had given Sergeant Ryburn and Officer Zepeda permission to enter. Id., at 3–4.
Upon entering the house, the officers remained in theliving room with Mrs. Huff and Vincent. Eventually, Vincent’s father entered the room and challenged theofficers’ authority to be there. The officers remained inside the house for a total of 5 to 10 minutes. During that time, the officers talked to Mr. Huff and Vincent. Theydid not conduct any search of Mr. Huff, Mrs. Huff, orVincent, or any of their property. The officers ultimately concluded that the rumor about Vincent was false, and they reported their conclusion to the school. Id., at 4.
The Huffs brought this action against the officers underRev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983. The complaint alleges that the officers violated the Huffs’ Fourth Amendment rights by entering their home without a warrant. Following a 2-day bench trial, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the officers. The District Court resolved conflicting testimony regarding Mrs. Huff’s response to Sergeant Ryburn’s inquiry about guns by finding that Mrs. Huff “immediately turned around and ran into the house.”
App. to Pet. for Cert. 3. The District Court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Mrs. Huff’s odd behavior, combined with the information the officers gathered at the school, could have led reasonable officers to believe “that there could be weapons inside the house, and that family members or the officers themselves were in danger.” Id., at 6. The District Court noted that “[w]ithin a very short period of time, the officers were confronted with facts and circumstances giving rise to grave concern about the nature of the danger they were
confronting.” Id., at 6–7. With respect to this kind of“rapidly evolving incident,” the District Court explained, courts should be especially reluctant “to fault the police for not obtaining a warrant.” Id., at 7.
A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District
Court as to the two officers who entered the house on the assumption that Mrs. Huff had consented, but reversed as to petitioners. The majority upheld the DistrictCourt’s findings of fact, but disagreed with the DistrictCourt’s conclusion that petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity. The majority acknowledged that police officers are allowed to enter a home without a warrant if they reasonably believe that immediate entry is necessary to protect themselves or others from serious harm, even if the officers lack probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. Id., at 24. But the
majority determined that, in this case, “any belief that the officers or other family members were in serious, imminent
harm would have been objectively unreasonable” given that “[Mrs. Huff] merely asserted her right to endher conversation with the officers and returned to her home.” Id., at 25.
Judge Rawlinson dissented. She explained that “the discrete incident that precipitated the entry in this case was Mrs. Huff’s response to the question regarding whether there were guns in the house.” Id., at 31. She faulted the majority for “recit[ing] a sanitized account of this event” that differed markedly from the District Court’s findings of fact, which the majority had conceded must becredited. Judge Rawlinson looked to “cases that specifi-
cally address the scenario where officer safety concernsprompted the entry” and concluded that, under the rationale articulated in those cases, “a police officer couldhave reasonably believed that he was justified in making a warrantless entry to ensure that no one inside the househad a gun after Mrs. Huff ran into the house without answering the question of whether anyone had a weapon.”
Id., at 31, 33, 37.
Judge Rawlinson’s analysis of the qualified immunity issue was correct. No decision of this Court has found a Fourth Amendment violation on facts even roughly comparable to those present in this case. On the contrary, some of our opinions may be read as pointing in the opposition direction.
In Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U. S. 398, 400 (2006), we
held that officers may enter a residence without a warrant when they have “an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is . . . imminently threatened with [serious injury].” We explained that “‘[t]he need to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury is justificationfor what would be otherwise illegal absent an exigency or emergency.’” Id., at 403 (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437
U. S. 385, 392 (1978)). In addition, in Georgia v. Randolph,
547 U. S. 103, 118 (2006), the Court stated that “it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort by entering [a residence] . . . to determine whetherviolence . . . is about to (or soon will) occur.”
A reasonable police officer could read these decisions to mean that the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to enter a residence if the officer has a reasonable basis for concluding that there is an imminent threat of violence. In this case, the District Court concluded that petitioners had such an objectively reasonable basis for reaching sucha conclusion. The District Court wrote:
“[T]he officers testified that a number of factors led them to be concerned for their own safety and for thesafety of other persons in the residence: the unusual behavior of the parents in not answering the door or the telephone; the fact that Mrs. Huff did not inquire about the reason for their visit or express concern that they were investigating her son; the fact that she hung up the telephone on the officer; the fact that she refused to tell them whether there were guns in the house; and finally, the fact that she ran back into the house while being questioned. That behavior, combined with the information obtained at the school—that Vincent was a student who was a victim of bullying, who had been absent from school for two days, and who had threatened to ‘shoot up’ theschool—led the officers to believe that there could be weapons inside the house, and that family member sor the officers themselves were in danger.” App. toPet. for Cert. 6.
This belief, the District Court held, was “objectively reasonable,” particularly since the situation was “rapidly evolving” and the officers had to make quick decisions. Id., at 6–7.
The panel majority—far removed from the scene and with the opportunity to dissect the elements of the situation—
confidently concluded that the officers really had no reason to fear for their safety or that of anyone else. As the panel majority saw things, it was irrelevant that the Huffs did not respond when the officers knocked on the door and announced their presence and when they called the home phone because the Huffs had no legal obligationto respond to a knock on the door or to answer the phone. ****
The majority attributed no significance to the fact that, when the officers finally reached Mrs. Huff on her cell phone, she abruptly hung up in the middle of their conversation. And, according to the majority, the officers should not have been concerned by Mrs. Huff’s reaction whenthey asked her if there were any guns in the house because Mrs. Huff “merely asserted her right to end herconversation with the officers and returned to her home.”
Confronted with the facts found by the District Court,
reasonable officers in the position of petitioners could havecome to the conclusion that there was an imminent threat
to their safety and to the safety of others. The Ninth
Circuit’s contrary conclusion was flawed for numerous
reasons.
First, although the panel majority purported to acceptthe findings of the District Court, it changed those findings
in several key respects. As Judge Rawlinson correctlyobserved, “the discrete incident that precipitated the entryin this case was Mrs. Huff’s response to the question regarding whether there were guns in the house.” Id., at 31. The District Court’s finding that Mrs. Huff “immediately turned around and ran into the house” implicitly rejected Mrs. Huff’s contrary testimony that she walkedinto the house after telling the officers that she was going
to get her husband. Id., at 3. The panel majority upheld the District Court’s findings of fact and acknowledged thatit could not reverse the District Court simply because it“may have weighed the testimony of the witnesses and other evidence in another manner.” Id., at 15. But the panel majority’s determination that petitioners were not entitled to qualified immunity rested on an account of the facts that differed markedly from the District Court’s finding. According to the panel majority, Mrs. Huff “merely asserted her right to end her conversation with the officers and returned to her home” after telling the officers“that she would go get her husband.” Id., at 12, 25.
Second, the panel majority appears to have taken the view that conduct cannot be regarded as a matter of concern so long as it is lawful. Accordingly, the panel majority concluded that Mrs. Huff’s response to the question whether there were any guns in the house (immediately turning around and running inside) was not a reason for alarm because she was under no legal obligation to continue her conversation with the police. It should go without saying, however, that there are many circumstances in which lawful conduct may portend imminent violence.
Third, the panel majority’s method of analyzing thestring of events that unfolded at the Huff residence was entirely unrealistic. The majority looked at each separateevent in isolation and concluded that each, in itself, did not give cause for concern. But it is a matter of common sense that a combination of events each of which is mundane when viewed in isolation may paint an alarming picture.
Fourth, the panel majority did not heed the DistrictCourt’s wise admonition that judges should be cautious about second-guessing a police officer’s assessment, made on the scene, of the danger presented by a particular situation. With the benefit of hindsight and calm deliberation, the panel majority concluded that it was unreasonable for petitioners to fear that violence was imminent.
But we have instructed that reasonableness “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on thescene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight” and that “[t]he calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that aretense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 396–397 (1989). Judged from theproper perspective of a reasonable officer forced to make asplit-second decision in response to a rapidly unfoldingchain of events that culminated with Mrs. Huff turning and running into the house after refusing to answer a question about guns, petitioners’ belief that entry was necessary to avoid injury to themselves or others was imminently reasonable.
In sum, reasonable police officers in petitioners’ position could have come to the conclusion that the Fourth Amendment permitted them to enter the Huff residence if there was an objectively reasonable basis for fearing thatviolence was imminent. And a reasonable officer could have come to such a conclusion based on the facts as found by the District Court.
The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for the entry of judgment in favor of petitioners.
It is so ordered.
**** Note here the Court’s obvious hostility to the Ninth Circuit in general– which is what this opinion is really all about– sticking it to the “liberal” Ninth.
All appellate courts are clearly located away from the police actions– so does that make them incapable of rendering opinions? Or ethically unsuited to do so?
Note also the court’s contempt for the mother. Whoever wrote this opinion hates liberal parents who stick up for themselves– or their kids.
“Sergeant Ryburn, who was “scared because [he] didn’t know what was in that house” and had “seen too many officers killed,” entered the house behindher.”
How many officers has Ryburn seen killed?
Great question. I’m not aware of any.
But if it’s not more than one then this is proof-positive that he lied.
Interesting– why didn’t the Leader ask anyone this question? They get paid to write these articles, not me.
Maybe they didn’t even read the Opinion?
Sgt Ryburn was the Department’s liaison to Matt Pavelka’s Family after he was killed. He stood by that family 24/7 for months after his death. He continues to help that family in the name of the Department. But that’s not what he meant when he said he had “seen too many officers killed.”
Sgt Ryburn was referring to his training and what he had seen happen around him, not necessarily what he had personally seen happen before his eyes.
What would you have said if the officers had poo-pood the information and this kid had indeed shot up the school? You’d be saying how inept they were and how they could have stopped the tragedy from taking place.
They knew within 5 minutes that this was a nothing story. Yet they went into the house anyway because the mother pissed them off. And you guys are even admitting that here!
And btw, how many officers did Ryburn see killed in training? The Court thought that statement was important enough to cite.
It was perfectly appropriate for them to respond, just not enter the house without cause. Acting disrespectful to the police is not grounds for a Fourth Amendment violation.
How about a minor alteration?
“How many Officer’s CAREERS has he seen killed?”
Funny. Maybe that’s what he was thinking about.
So this kid, who was already being bullied at school, gets to see his entire family bullied. Why? Because he had been bullied.
Since people do have the right not to speak to police without an attorney present I am lost as to what is “odd” about hanging up the phone or ending the on the porch conversation and walking back inside. Since word is being “odd’” a crime and don’t forget the word “odd” is subjective to the interpretation of the person using it. This is the very type of event that creates mistrust of government by more and more people and it’s sad indeed that government agents don’t realize that things like this are no victory at all as public trust is erroded and lost by them.
Great point.
It’s what I mean why I say that they appear to have no regret about this incident. Instead, they’re high-fiving each other.
And as long as we have a hapless city council that enthusiastically pays their legal bills, the behavior will continue.
How much did this legal experiment cost us, btw? Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to settle?
Especially when we know already that the BPD has been engaging in hamfisted behaviors?
Semi seems to be all knowing, and all seeing. He was there when the fired officers were being discriminated against and not beating people. He was there when Omar was reporting people for being racist, not when he was giving them outstanding evaluations. And of course, he was there when Ryburn, et al were fabricating their contact with this family. How else could he know they lied.
Semi, you’re an ass. I’ve read this bog for a long time and never felt compelled to respond. But over the last few days you’ve called Burbank a shit hole, labled BPD a laughing stock for arresting a prostitue, and now you know for a fact that the Supreme Court’s decision was based on lies.
If Burbank is a shit hole, then leave. I guarantee you won’t find the same level of community services anywhere serviced by LAPD and LAFD. Maybe in the smaller municipalities, but guess what moron, you’ll have the same issues there.
Guess what the girl from mcdonalds does, she’s a prostitute. Did you know the police cant arrest for a misdemeanor crime not committed in their presence? I’ll bet you anything you want it was a citizens arrest. Should we turn those down?
Lastly, I think you’re right, no one should take a threat of a student with a gun wanting to shoot up a school as serious. That would never happen. Just walk away and hope for the best. I’m sure the mother wasn’t acting odd and being a jerk, that never happens. And of course Ryburn lied about seeing too many cops died. In that procession you never keep track of those that have fallen, nor would you ever attend debriefs or training to help prevent it. You’re an ass and you suppose you know everything that’s going on, and how the cops do their jobs. You don’t, and the authority with which you blog makes people who don’t know any better assume all cops are bad. You’ll say I never insinuated all cops are bad, but your sheep can’t differentiate between the bad apples you “know about” and the others. Your saving grace is the day you call the police for help, not one of them will walk away without lending assistance.
Is “acting odd and being a jerk” (in your words) legal grounds for entering their domicile? That’s pretty scary. And you’re only proving that I’m right about the city’s attitude problem here.
Yeah, don’t fuck with Burbank cops, is that the message?
This was a fucking high school kid embroiled in a phony shit-accusation that was mostly engineered by the school administrators. It wasn’t the Manson Ranch. And yet Ryburn went full-bore into this house for no good reason and then related a dishonest and extremely illogical (and inconsistent) story about what happened in order to get out of trouble.
And you know damn well that they looked around, too, in a terciary search. Why else did they go in? Their current story doesn’t even make any sense.
Burbank was terrified about this lawsuit. They can lie all they want to about it, but they lucked out this time and they know it. As they will most of the time with our right-wing courts these days.
Some days it is more difficult to be Jim than others..
The US Supreme Court weighed out all of the available information and decided a fourth amendment issue in favor of the PD. The fact that the case came from BPD is irrelevant, unless of course you’re Jim. Jim hates BPD so anything or anyone, including the Supreme Court, who side with BPD are simpletons, conspirators, and/or fools.
Jim knows he can’t fight the Court because it is the same body that allows him to publish innuendo, flat out lies, and all together inane banter to the dozen or so folks who care to find it. So, Jim must accuse the PD of lying. The jurisprudence version of “the dog ate my homework.”
The irrefutable facts are these… Jim was not there and the Supreme Court Justices were not there.
So now we have to ask ourselves.. Is Jim right or are the nine justices of the Supreme Court, the nine most vital legal minds in our form of government, right?
Since Jim is simple, he relies on simple reasoning. “The cops lied.”
I don’t think there is anything simple about a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decision. I have to assume the Court weighed all of the facts, including the conflict between Mrs. Huff’s version of what happened at the door and the PD’s version. Then, without even a single dissenting hint of disbelief of the PD’s account of the event, the Court ruled in favor of the PD.
Sorry Jim, the fact is that the men and women of the BPD, folks who really do place their lives on the line in service of the community, get it right most of the time. And after an exhaustive review of this incident, they got this right too.
Finally, please consider that you frequently accuse folks of lying when they say something that does not play into your way of thinking. I only bring this up because it seems to me you are factually incorrect at least 75% of the time. Are you lying or just wrong?
Yes, it’s so wonderful that SCOTUS “allows” me to publish.
This case only proves that it pays for cops to lie in court, because most judges will give them full deference in these matters when it comes to the “facts.”
Which every level did– and I suspect that the first level either had an incompetent plaintiff’s attorney who didn’t know how to cross-examine the cops, or a judge who wouldn’t allow them to do so.
The SCOTUS version doesn’t even make any sense when you examine it. Ryburn’s own depiction of what happened is inconsistent and illogical. For instance, if the mother indeed “ran” into the house (the dissenting appellate judge’s nutty exagerration of what happened) then why did they then just STAND AROUND for another 10 minutes inside chatting?
They would have done much more than that. Which is why this modest family sued them all the way up the ladder. Scalia btw thinks that coming onto private property is in itself a “search.” Check out his opinion on the very recent auto-surveillance case.
And again, how many police officers has Ryburn seen killed? If he lied to the lower courts about this, then what else did he lie about for effect?
And btw, the Court did not “weigh the facts.” They deferred to the lower levels, which took the cops at their word. Then they went from there onto the legal issue.
The court absolutely weighed the facts. They reviewed the lower courts interpretation of the same facts and found errors in how they came to their conclusions.
And again, please use caution in calling people liars. Do you really think its possible that a statement made by a police officer in a civil matter got through the entire process and the plaintiff’s attorney, as well as trial court judge, the appelate judges, and the Supreme Court Justices simply just didn’t pick up on it?
It seems more likley that all of these folks saw the statement for what it was and did not have the desire, as you do, to parse words in order to fulfil a hateful agenda.
The Supreme Court interpreted the facts re: Fourth Amendment issues.
They did not retry the facts– which they asserted had already been established by the lower levels. And they even noted that the Ninth majority accepted the BPD’s version.
The point here is that if cops just make up after-the-fact stories about what happened in order to justify their actions, 99% of the time the courts will accept them without question.
And I’m going to ask it again. Case in point:
If SCOTUS cited Ryburn as saying (during a lower level proceeding) that he had seen too many officers get killed, and that this was one reason why he was so concerned about the Huffs, then how many has he seen get killed?
I think he was lying.
I don’t think he’s seen any get killed- and yet whoever wrote this decision used his express statement (in quotes from the lower decision even!) as a justification for his actions in entering their home. They put stock in it as to his observation and experience.
The SCOTUS judge thought it was compelling enough to cite. Not me.
So why did he tell the lower court this story? He obviously did. And if he lied about that for effect, then what else did he lie about?
Even you must know how ridiculous that argument sounds. Is it really your premise that everyone involved took the officer’s statement to literally mean he has been standing there when “too many” officers were killed, and then weighed out those images in allowing his access to the residence? Really?
Anyone, sans you and yours, can and did plainly grasp what the officer meant.
In your world, the Huff”s real case is against their attorney who, based on your theory could have swayed the entire case with one simple question.
“So Sergeant, exactly how many cops have you seen get killed?” and that would have changed case law as we now know it? Really Jim?
We can go on like this Jim but I’m tired. I will save you the trouble of your response.. I’m pretty sure it will be akin to “Liar liar pants on fire!”
He said he’s seen too many officers get killed. He was citing it from experience as a testament to his judgement. Not second-hand. The dissenting Ninth District judge also interpreted it literally.
He didn’t say “I’ve heard” about other people getting killed, he cited personal knowledge in similar situations. Big difference. And the courts cited it verbatim too.
Words mean something. In LA it would be true as well, for many officers, and if people didn’t know Burbank they’d think the same.
Any reasonable person hearing that testimony from a cop would immediately presume that it wasn’t just a figure of speech, it was direct experience.
And it doesn’t stop there. Can you explain how the mother turning away suddenly became “ran away”? Or why any police officer would go inside for the absurd reason he claimed?
It’s not just one thing– it’s everything! And yes, if it could have been shown that he was misleading the court, then sure, it goes to the heart of his credibility.
BTW, it was the SCOTUS judge who cited this statement as being important, not me. It went to his benefit. And SCOTUS too cited it literally.
What would this blog read if we changed the facts a little. Let’s say like this:
Sgt Ryburn and several officers received information that Junior Huff had threatened to shoot up the school and was absent for two days. The school administration believed the information was important and scary enough to share with the police.
Sgt Ryburn and the officers when to the Huff residence to speak with Junior Huff and the family about the concerns and investigate the validity of the threats.
Junior Huff’s mother meets the officers outside after the weird actions related to the phone. Momma Huff runs inside after the gun conversation.
Sgt Ryburn says, “Well. Guess they don’t want to talk to us. Let’s go fellas.”
1) The officers are shot in the back of the head as they walk to their cars. Sgt Ryburn is not hit and has to answer to some questions about his dead personnel.
or 2) Junior Huff goes to school the following day, shoots and kills 20 kids and a couple teachers, then himself.
Let us know what you would be saying about these scenarios. Be honest.
PS How about you post these comments real time. Before you have time to prepare a response and post them at the same time?
WordPress holds most of them as spam, for some reason. So I have to clear them.
If Momma Huff had run in right away you might have a point. But she spoke to the officers for enough time that they could assess the situation. Their subsequent behavior inside the house also contradicts their later claims. For instance, they didn’t do a quick search of the rooms? Or separate potential witnesses? By not doing so, how did they assess the possible danger? Why did they go in then?
It would also have taken them 20 minutes max to get a real warrant from a judge. And no one said they had to leave the scene.
The hypotheticals you suggest could also be used to justify almost any Fourth Amendment violation. The Ninth’s majority opinion against Burbank has a good rebuttal of your concerns, and others, but SCOTUS ignored it in the name of officer expedience and claimed experience. The trial court believed the officers over the family, and then the later courts relied upon that fact-finding.
The bigger problem here is that the Burbank police have a long history of just walking into people’s houses after they show up. Everyone who grew up in Burbank knows this, and that includes senior cops like Rosoff.
If this was the only time that Burbank cops were blamed for going inside you guys might be right. This is a bad practice and it’s not rare.
This simply means that Burbank along with the rest of the country is becoming more of a police state and people are losing their constitutional rights. It is about this attitude that many of us strongly object to and the courts are no help. The government whether federal, state or local no longer represent the people but represent themselves and those who have the money and influence to lobby. It becomes more and more obvious every day.
As a parent, if a kid at my child’s school is rumored to have threatened violent actions towards the school or students, I would hope that BPD would take it seriously and investigate the matter quickly before anything tragic occurs. Of course, this can be done peacefully- but if they feel time is critical and the potential for fatalities exists, then I would cut them some slack. Now, if the school and the parents didn’t cooperate, then the cops are going to have a tough time ascertaining the real threat. Why a parent wouldn’t cooperate in this situation seems “odd” to me too. At the end of the day, if it turns out to be a hoax, then apologies are in order and the accusers should be punished. If the kid is a victim of bullying, then the cops can follow up on that instead. If a violent situation is prevented, then we should all be thankful. The news loves to splash school violence stories on the front page, so it’s no wonder that many of us would be hyper-concerned about any threat, perceived or real.
Semi, you need to find another past time. Starting blogs and getting your ass kicked must not be fun. The citizens, most of us in Burbank, love our police. I read the case points and found the actions of the police to be sincere. The actions of the family sound like they were looking for a quick money grab or cash claim from the city. Semi, why don’t you write for the Leader so everyone can wipe their ass with your crap!
Great discussion. Thank you all.
Let me see, a person (Jim) who worked his way to be a janitor, and was then fired, is smarter than the US Supreme Court……….I have heard it all.
You guys crack me up.
Ever had a 19-year-old girl who was too hot for regular high school wait around until you’re off work so that she can suck your cock for half the night? And that was routine. They used to vie with each other for the right to sit next to me on the stoop between classes.
So tell me about being a “janitor”? No wonder the newer crazy set at the BUSD hated me later on.
Some day when I’m in the mood I’ll tell a hilarious story about what happened to that place right after I left.
It became such a health disaster because of my absence that it was headline news in the Leader for about two weeks. It’s well documented. The teachers even had to call the County in, that’s how bad it was.