The video was more than enough for most people to conclude that the inexplicably unnamed Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy was not merely wrong, but substantively no different than any other home invader. Others saw the potential for gaps in the context that might somehow make the deputy look less offensive, and so manufactured background facts the might exculpate the deputy or at least raised questions.
The contextual facts, however, were of little help to the deputy. They only made him look worse.
According to the video, a minor answered the door after the deputy rang the bell. Captions in the video say the minor closed the door after seeing the deputy, only for the deputy to open the door and let himself in.
The deputy, who stands just inside the door’s threshold, tells Shirey he will not leave the house. He asserts his right to be inside by pointing off-screen and saying, “They opened the door and ran from me.”
“Now that I’m inside your house, I own your house right now,” the deputy says in the video.
The woman, Adele Shirley, refused to let the deputy come further into the house, telling him that since he did not have a warrant, he could not come in. The reason for his responding to the house was that the next door neighbor called to complain about noise from Shirley’s backyard.
The incident occurred at 2:41 a.m. following a neighbor’s noise complaint, according to the Sheriff’s Office.
And but for video, the likelihood that the deputy’s conduct would come under scrutiny is slim to none.
Without touching the deputy, Shirley moves closer and the deputy then seizes her and arrests her.
After Shirey [sic] points at the deputy, he grabs her and pulls her onto the front porch before putting her in handcuffs. The Sheriff’s Department says she was ultimately booked into the Cois Byrd Detention Center for resisting arrest and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
As the video shows, the deputy opened the door and crossed the threshold to enter into the house. Without a warrant, such an entry would require an exception to the warrant requirement, such as hot pursuit or exigent circumstances. That the door was opened and closed by Shirley’s teenage children does not give rise to any exception, particularly given the impetus for the deputy’s presence being a noise complaint.
Was there any justification for the deputy’s conduct? Once he engaged in the flagrantly unconstitutional conduct of entering a home with neither warrant nor exception, was there any chance he would back off? Was there anything Shirley could have said or done to remove this putative home invader from her house? Was there cause for the deputy to touch her, no less use physical force to seize her? Was there cause to arrest her?
Criminal defense lawyers have a general rule of thumb, comply now, grieve later, as the way to avoid arrest by an office engaged in unlawful conduct. It’s also a good way to avoid a beating or worse by an officer who has already proven himself disinclined to act lawfully. Worse still, when an officer comes to the realization that he’s cross the line, but is incapable or unwilling to admit he’s wrong and feels compelled to double down on unlawful and unconstitutional conduct, what recourse is there for Shirley to prevent her seizure and arrest while not acquiescing to his entry into her home?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Cop was clearly in the wrong crossing the threshold, but will use the fact that she raised her hand in his direction as excuse for his subsequent actions. As to what the woman could have done, maybe tone down the anger, and ask him to leave her home and address her from outside the door. I suspect if it was a black household outcome may have been worse.
If remember correctly she did say she would talk to him outside. The cop refused.
“…what recourse is there for Shirley to prevent her seizure and arrest while not acquiescing to his entry into her home?”
None under the current state/federal laws. The consequences would matter if police didn’t have qualified immunity. Blame the US Congress and state legislators. Blame the voters who allow it.
This is not a qualified immunity problem. Qualified immunity only helps police avoid consequences when the police are engaging in possibly constitutional conduct.
To quote the article, “Once he engaged in the flagrantly unconstitutional conduct of entering a home with neither warrant nor exception, […]”
To answer the original question, when faced with a lawless officer, there is nothing Shirley can do to simultaneously minimize her chance of being arrested and prevent unlawful entry into her home.
Wrong. Police get Qualified Immunity if they engaged in the flagrantly unconstitutional conduct that they can claim that they as reasonable officers did not know and a previous court has not ruled in a nearly identical case that the conduct was flagrantly unconstitutional. Fields v. City of Philadelphia
What happened here has been unconstitutional for decades. QI would be a wasted argument.
I suspect that this arrest will be slow-walked, continued and dragged out by law enforcement and the courts.
The QI defense can be used stall a 1983 lawsuit for a couple of more years with appeals. QI could be granted by a judge as no previous case had a minor open and close the door on the cop before and the cop believed that is the same as consent to enter and search. Cop lawyers are that dishonest, bad faith and shameless and judges let them get away with it.
Disagree. Almost every real world interaction has some unique aspect that has not been ruled upon by a court. A creative prosecutor will find an excuse to argue QI. There are a lot of former prosecutors in black robes who would buy it. For example, suppose the cop heard the child’s mother order the child to close the door and claims he suspected abuse of the child because of the tone of her voice? Has any court ever ruled on that specific fact pattern?
QI was created because the SCOTUS recognized that cops need some protection from strict liability when they have to make split second decisions that can involve life and death. Cops are not lawyers. But QI is a bad rule. It goes too far and protects unreasonable cops, like this one. QI should be replaced by an objective “reasonable law enforcement officer” standard that would only apply to law enforcement officers in exigent circumstances.
QI has unfortunately been expanded to shield public officials, like college presidents, in non-exigent situations.
Skink is a lawyer who actually does these cases for a living. You, on the other hand, are not.
To SHG.
You assume wrong. I have litigated QI since Saucier.
E.g., Husain v. Springer, 494 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2007) cert. denied 552 U.S. 1258 (2008).
I stand corrected.
While cursing at the deputy is rarely an effective means of persuasion, it’s understandable that few people can keep their cool in that situation. Few things piss off a cop more than a calm person who won’t be let the cop get her riled up.
My best reaction is that she should have told the deputy she did not consent to his entering her home, did not want to speak with him and stood their, silently, blocking his way in without taking any action that could potentially be characterized as threatening (not that I think she did, but)…
Is it possible the Deputy would have pushed through anyway? Of course, but at least it would be entirely on him.
It’s already entirely on him. No need to Monday morning quarterback this. He has no lawful basis to enter her home, and no probable cause to arrest her. If a deputy is going to break the law, there really is no recourse other than being calm enough to not commit a crime against them while getting unlawfully arrested.
Calling a different branch of the police is sometimes an option or at least calling 911 and asking for a supervisor.
It can however lead to arrest for inappropriate use of 911.