This is a fun one. It must have given the city’s attorneys heartburn over the Bell-Jeff case:
Officer Roberts testified explicitly at the hearing that when he followed Sergeant Ryburn into the house, he did not believe that they had probable cause. He testified as follows:
Q: And you were going inside the Huff residence, you never, ever saw any criminal conduct; isn’t that true?
A: Correct.
Q: You never saw anything that gave you probable cause that any of your fellow officers were about to be injured or in danger of their lives; isn’t that true?
A: Correct.
Burbank sure lucked out on this one when it comes to ‘exigent circumstances.’ And they’re lucky that it was just a qualified immunity case, and not evidentiary. So you think they’ll learn the right lessons here?
We’ll end with this rationale from the Supreme Court. This is why Burbank won:
Judged from the proper perspective of a reasonable officer forced to make a split-second decision in response to a rapidly unfolding chain 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 that violence was imminent. And a reasonable officer could have come to such a conclusion based on the facts as found by the District Court.
That’s the issue at hand. Just what were those facts? Did Mrs. Huff really do that? And if so, did the BPD act consistent with this fear after they entered her house without a warrant?
It pays to lie.
A couple questions for your semi. How many search or arrest warrants have you written and had signed by a judge. And secondly do you know “Officer Roberts” (actually “Robarts”)?
If you were ever involved with the procurement of a search warrant you would know it takes a lot longer than 20 minutes, even for a seasoned investigator. If a warrant were obtained you would be screaming “Liars” anyhow.
Robarts is a protege of your buddy Omar Rodriguez and Jose Duran. Omar and Jose could arrest folks, but they didn’t teach their people very well. Robarts couldn’t find, articulate or identify “Probable Cause” if it woke him up in the morning. That doesn’t surprise many folks.
As you point out, but ignore, probable cause wasn’t the issue here. So the connection between probable cause, danger and injury is simply nonsense by you and the attorney who asked the question.
Tell that to Judges Kozinksi and Marbley (who dismissed it along with the emergency doctrine). They cited it as compelling. Not me.
In addition to exigency, officers must have probable cause. “Officers have probable cause for a search when `the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.’” United States v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638, 648 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)). [13] Probable cause is determined based on “the totality of the circumstances known to the officers at the time.” United States v. Alaimalo, 313 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, the police did not have, nor did the district court find, probable cause to believe that an offense had been or was being committed.[fn2] See United States v. [*546] Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (outlining the probable cause standard requiring that officers “have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person being arrested”). [14] And “Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit cases unequivocally hold that probable cause is a precondition for any warrantless entry to seize a person in his home.”
But SCOTUS said there was — based upon the facts as established by the first court– evidence that it was an emergency– which was established by police testimony. Which was inconsistent.
What the testimony shows is that there was no ‘probable cause’ to think there was an emergency reason to commit a warrantless entry. Robarts said they were not in danger, which is the only grounds for an emergency entry.
Everything else needs both probable cause of a crime and exigent circumstances. But SCOTUS ignored this testimony and said it was an emergency justification. The Ninth did not. That’s why they cited Robart. He showed there wasn’t one.
So your “probable cause” claim, while accurate as to its being unnecessary in emergency entries for harm and danger, is beside the point. You’re just playing a word game here. Robarts cleared the decks for the city on that one, regardless of how Terrell incorrectly characterized it in court. It’s just too bad SCOTUS didn’t care. They believed Ryburn.
Curious that this particular anonymous wants to know how many Search or Arrest Warrants you have written and submitted to a Judge for issuance??
Maybe he/she is “hinting” that they want us to ask THEM the question??
Maybe they want to “educate” the rest of us about the most significant Warrant issued during their career(s)–the “Tip-to-Tip” Warrant secured from the Court in order to monitor Cell Phone Traffic of the Vineland Boyz, et al.
Maybe they want to “educate” the rest of us on how to “use/abuse” the information garnered utilizing one of those puppies!!!
Hey semi, here’s a chance for us to learn how these things “get done”.
Their willingness to throw Robarts “under the bus” in order to perpetuate
the “Officer’s Safety” assertion of Ryburn fits right in with one of the tenets of the U.S. Justice Department reviews of Patterns & Practices,
as employed by members of Burbank Police Department.
This could get better than ANY night at Don Coo-Coo’s!!!
Maybe they’ll regale us with stories of imbibing “Real Mexican Booze” while they were enjoying Mexican Hospitality—without the benefit’s that accompany the Legal Authority to “operate in a NAFTA Environment”??
Great points Dixie. There’s more going on here than just Ryburn v. Huff, but I’m sure the dept had a total shitfit over Robart’s testimony after they lost with the Ninth.
What the Ryburn decision means is that any Burbank cop can from now on invoke the “emergency doctrine” in order to justify a warrantless search. They can easily claim a danger motive by trumping up both:
a) the original story about why they were there (which is what happened with Huff), and,
b) the dangers of the site itself.
Will all Burbank cops do this? Of course not. But some will.
What it all boils down to with Ryburn is that the Ninth majority believed Robart, in that there was no reason to invoke these emergency powers. But SCOTUS ignored Robart and believed Ryburn’s concerns instead– and then ignored his subsequent, contradictory behaviors once he was inside the house. Ryburn did not act like a cop in danger in a dangerous situation.
You can tell by their anti-Burbank opinion that both Marbley and Kozinksi did not believe Ryburn at all. That’s why they quoted Robart at length. And the fact that it was not a “probable cause” case as Terrell asked in court, though correct, ignores the point. Terrell showed that it was not dangerous and it was not an emergency.
Don Coo-Coo’s used to be great until you saw some crazy looking transient smelling like cigarettes and wearing a hawaiian shirt hanging out in the alley by city hall, next to Don Coo-Coo’s. It scared a lot of customers away. Also, a weird dude that always wore a hoody sweatshirt with greasy hair would be with this scary wierdo. I thought it was against the law to smoke in the area of San Fernando/Orange Grove? I wish the police would arrest them.
City employees maybe?
Anonymous, thank you for your insightful comments and your contributions. I know exactly who you are talking about. They are not city employees, they are Flys…aka “GAD FLYS”. You must be referring to Mike “Grumpy” Nolan and Father David Piroli. If I am wrong please correct me. When I am talking my nightly strolls into the Burbank Village area, I routinely see Grumpy and the Ex-Priest smoking and joking. The city would never take them for employees. In fact, the police department should be enforcing the smoking laws with these 2 nincompoops.
Isn’t it funny how whenever there’s any criticism of or challenge to the Burbank police, the immediate response is off-topic personal insults and slander? If not threats of police actions?
Kind of makes you wonder if all those accusations against the BPD and their city employee cohorts are indeed true.
We should only be mildly interested in what Robarts has to say. Even if he believed that, it’s what the officers believed or knew COLLECTIVELY, not what any one officer knew or perceived. If Officer A has probable cause or an exigency and tells Officer B and C, those officers (B and C) could legally act on it, without ANY firsthand knowledge or perception.
The guys did the right thing here. They really did. This over analyzation was caused by money seeking parents and an attorney. Not acting on the information could have had dire repercussions. This short intrusion was completely justified and 100% the right thing to do (getting a warrant would have taken SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER and been a BIGGER intrusion – just saying that’s the reality).
Semi, you need to get your nose out of the textbooks. You think you know what you are talking about, but you really don’t. It’s funny how you pick and choose which questions to answer from the comment section and completely ignore most of them. You pick the ones you think you have a good retort to, then act like the other 10 points never existed or were brought up. You should really stick to library and parade matters, or maybe the weather and movie premiers like your girlfriend over at that other Burbank Blog, the Groove or whatever it’s called.
We, the citizens of Burbank, appreciate the job the Burbank Police Department does day in and day out. 99% of that job never makes the news or your blog. Even when there is a hiccup, it’s just that. I want our officers being proactive and sniffing out the shady characters. I want our men and women investigating leads or tips. If the lead or tip turns out to be a nothing, move on to the next one.
You are in the extreme minority on this. Pack it up sir. Let’s move on to the next issue, cause you have lost this one.
I’m actually accused of trying to address too many points in the comments !
I think the family’s concern was that both the police and Bell-Jeff smeared their kid’s reputation by running to the press and telling everyone that he was a potential terrorist. That would piss anyone off.
I think also that the BPD has had such a big problem in this area– for years– that someone was finally compelled to do something about it. And in my experience I don’t think I’ve ever seen a police visit to a house anywhere in Burbank that did not also involve a police entrance.
Why is that? And everyone here in town knows that the BPD has the bad habit of responding to party-noise complaints by actually going into the houses and telling people to leave. What legal doctrine are they invoking to be able to do this?
As to Robart’s testimony, apparently Judge Kozinski thought that it was relevant when the Ninth kicked Burbank in the behind. He signed onto Marbley’s opinion without dissent. And he’s a Conservative!
Face it– Robart was a big problem in this case. The attorneys knew it, the BPD knew it, everyone knew it, but Burbank lucked out in the end.
My fear about Ryburn v Huff is that it’s going to be easily abused, and very quickly. From now on everything’s going to be an “emergency.”
As for the time it takes for securing a Warrant:
At one time, the Honorable Eric Younger was known to cruise around in a vehicle outfitted with a desk & a Flag for purposes of issuing Warrants
“in-a-timely-manner”.
As a matter of fact, some Judges have been known to have carried a shield other than those issued for the old Municipal Court or Superior Court–the Honorable Harry Crowder & Judge “Red” Stromwell among others along with Younger—they earned them.
Second District Court of Appeal’s Justice “Buck” Compton was another.
Oft-times–”just-a-phone-call-away”—when they TRUST you!?!
Well now they don’t need warrants any more. They just need fear and loathing “emergencies.”
And if they can’t trump them up on their own, then they can just run to their friends at the Leader and promote stories about how much local danger there is afoot. They’ll be sure to get them published.
It’ll work for awhile.
But what will eventually happen is that they’ll overreach– they’ll suddenly claim that there’s some “ring” of 17-year-old teenage terrorists running around and then do a bunch of last-minute warrantless entries and searches. At that point the shit will hit the fan.
Btw Dixie, do you think that when the Feds finally take the heat off Burbank this will get worse? I think the BPD higher-ups have been on their good behavior lately only because the Feds are still in town and breathing down their necks.
I think it’s going to be open season when they finally close their investigation. Like Happy Hunting Time in Burbank. The same with the DA.
I think those two organizations suspect this, and it explains why they’re still looking on.
Oh the old days Mikey Boy…. This ain’t your papas judicial system no more…. Wake up kids! It’s 2012, not 1978.
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.
I’ve said it before: 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.
You watch too much porn. There is no way you could get any chicks with the way you look. So keep dreaming away about being blown by some 19 year old female. I bet you tried hitting on your mom.
You have no idea the lookers I’ve had. I can’t believe it myself sometimes. That old job in itself was like paradise, and it’s why I have to laugh whenever anyone tries to throw it in my face. Yeah, “loser.”
How come there is no hoopla about the Airport Police discrimination case? I really find it ironic that the defendant is the husband of Cynthia Guillen Gomez. Can someone please explain to the citizens why she can sue but her beautiful spouse can call their co-workers, “fag” and “sissy”? I wonder if Mrs Guillen Gomez uses that kind of language at her place of employment.
Can you please post a copy of the lawsuit? I see you routinely post complaints and I figure you could post it on your blog.
Semichorus, be a gentleman not a rude host. I could get Chief Bromden to knock you over the head if you continue being a unruly correspondent.
Can some please confirm is this true? Is Henry Gomez married to Officer Guiillen-Gomez of the Burbank Police Department? If so, I would have to question her motives regarding her discrimination lawsuit.
Is there a nexus there?
I would question your motives for bringing up this innuendo, actually.
And isn’t her lawsuit partly about being harassed and threatened in front of her peers at work, by an asst. city attorney?
BTW, I am always extremely sceptical of any mere “sexual harassment” or sexual abuse lawsuit. I am almost always on the side of the accused on those. I never believe the stories.
That’s what makes me different from other ‘bleeding heart’ liberals. I’ve seen way too many female sexual ‘conquestors” turn around and lie through their teeth about their past exploits in order to to garner sympathy, attention or religious absolution. Or to placate a jealous husband who didn’t have as much fun.
Curiously once again,
Shitty Hall Boot-Lickers (and other anatomical parts) really DO
eat-their-young!!!
As for the Topic “Can we get our stories straight?” the remarks made above are Classical for their ilk.
They choose up sides, attack “others” in their very own BPOA whom they deem “out-of-step” and make transparent attempts to bring discredit upon relatives.
While it’s been true of BPD Historically–this Blog has documented that the “mind-set” has not YET been rooted-out.
All the “training” is for naught if the “causation” is perpetuated in the manner of applying salve upon an infection–allowing for the penetration of the newer “layers” of skin!!!
As with Lawyers; our City can ALWAYS use more GOOD Cops.
Any Citizen who observed Officer Cindy on the job at local Park Facilities, warmly acknowledged and acknowledging the children and their parents would KNOW that the minions, along with their Shitty Hall Cohorts are confused—at the very LEAST.
Yes, and let me add again that I don’t think the problems at the BPD are with the guys in the street. It’s upper-level management, in particular those mid-80s guys who got promoted too fast after the Don Sanders/Al Madrid generation suddenly retired.
Henry and Cynthia are married
The limp dicks never get the message.
Training and re-training won’t work on numbskulls.
Harry Callahan didn’t need no warrant.
One time I saw Pauline Kael give a lecture, and in the question-and-answer period somebody asked her about a recent news article that had cited Clint Eastwood as having gone to his psychiatrist to discuss “her problems.” She had just slammed Dirty Harry in the New Yorker.
Kael lit up with delight and clapped her hands together. “Isn’t that just so delightful?” she said. “Isn’t that just so perfect!”
“A man’s got to know his limitations.”