Would this situation have been improved by the plaintiffs using force against the officers?http://www.sdsheriff.net/legalupdates/docs/0411.pdfHuff v. City of Burbank (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2011) 632 F.3rd 539
Rule: A non-consensual, warrantless entry into a residence cannot be justified by an
unsubstantiated rumor.
Facts: Burbank Police Officers responded to a high school to investigate a report by the
principal concerning rumors that a student, Vincent Huff, had written a letter threatening
to “shoot up” the school. Principal Sister Milner, concerned about the safety of her
students, asked the officers to investigate. Several other students were interviewed, but
the officers couldn’t verify the existence of such a letter. Vincent hadn’t been at school
for two days. So they decided to go to Vincent’s home where he lived with his parents,
George and Maria. At the Huff residence, no one responded when the officers knocked
at the door and announced their presence. The officers called the residence by telephone,
but no one answered. They then called Maria’s cell phone. Maria answered. Informed
that the officers wished to talk to her and her son, she hung up on them. Two minutes
later, Maria and Vincent came out on the front steps. When the officers told them that
they were there investigating some threats at the school, Vincent responded; “I can’t
believe you’re here for that.” Maria was asked if they could go inside to talk, to which
Maria responded; “No,” not without a warrant. Asked if there were any guns in the
home, Maria avoided the question and responded that she would get her husband. She
then turned and went into the house. One of the officers followed her in. Vincent and a
second officer also went inside. One of the officers testified to making entry into the
8
house out of concern for their safety. Two other officers entered the house after
everyone else. The officers all remained in the living room as George entered the room
and challenged their authority for being there. After a five to ten minute conversation in
the living room, upon satisfying themselves that the rumors about shooting up the school
were false, the officers all left. The Huffs thereafter sued the Burbank Police Department
and the officers involved in federal court. The trial court found for the civil defendants
after a two-day bench trial. The Plaintiff Huffs appealed.
Held: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed. The issue on appeal was whether
upon making the warrantless entry into the Huff’s residence, the officers had probable
cause and exigent circumstances. The Ninth Circuit ruled that they had neither and that
the entry into the Huff residence was done in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Likening the officers’ entry of the Huff home to an entry done for the purpose of
conducting a warrantless search, the Court held that such an entry is lawful only when
officers have “a reasonable belief that their entry is necessary to prevent physical harm to
the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the
suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement
efforts.” The Court interpreted this requirement as requiring “probable cause.” But you
can’t justify probable cause on information that amounts to no more than an
unsubstantiated rumor. Secondly, even if the officers had probable cause, there must also
be “exigent circumstances” requiring an immediate entry. The exigent circumstances
argued here by the civil defendants was for the safety of the officers or the occupants of
the house. The civil defendants (i.e., officers) argued that, in addition to the rumor
concerning Vincent possibly threatening to shoot up the school, the following facts were
sufficient to warrant a finding of exigent circumstances: (1) The unusual behavior of the
parents in not answering the door or the telephone; (2) Maria hanging up on the officers
when they finally reached her on her cell phone; (3) Maria not inquiring about the reason
for their visit or expressing concern that they were investigating her son; (4) Maria
refusing to tell the officers whether there were any guns in the house; and (5) Maria
running back into the house while being questioned about the possible presence of
firearms. These facts, per the Court, amounted to no more than “speculation” on the part
of the officers that their safety was in jeopardy. Lastly, the Court noted that although not
argued by the civil defendants, the “emergency circumstances” theory also fails to justify
a warrantless entry into the home. “Emergency circumstances,” allowing for a
warrantless entry into a residence, may be found when officers reasonably believe entry
is necessary to protect or preserve life or avoid serious injury. “Probable cause” is not
necessary. But the officers must have “some reasonable basis, approximating probable
cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched.” In this case the
Court found that there was “no objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there was
an immediate need to protect others or themselves from serious harm.” The entry of the
house, therefore, was in violation of the Fourth Amendment, providing the Huffs with a
cause of action for civil damages.
Note: This case is so screwy, and so wrong, that I almost didn’t brief it. In justifying
their belief that the entry into the house was illegal, the Court wanders through all sorts of
irrelevant legal theories, using tests and factors applicable to searches. Although this
9
case involved a warrantless entry into a residence, it did not involve a search. Same
constitutional amendment—the Fourth—but different problem altogether. This case
involved officers trying to protect themselves while responding to a situation reportedly
involving firearms. Although I don’t have a case directly on point supporting my
argument, it seems to me that if an officer can pat a person down for weapons based upon
no more than a “reasonable suspicion,” then they should be allowed to follow an
uncooperative homeowner into the house under circumstances that would lead any
reasonable officer to believe that she just might be intending to fetch a firearm. The
United States Supreme Court has already rejected the Ninth Circuits attempts to fit
potentially dangerous situations into neat little categories meant for searches. In Brigham
City v. Stuart (2006) 547 U.S. 398, the High Court upheld a warrantless residential entry
in a case involving “an objectively reasonable basis for believing” that someone may
suffer serious injury if an immediate entry is not made. As for the dangerousness of the
situation in the Huff case, the Court failed to mention Vincent’s very telling remark; “I
can’t believe you’re here for that.” While this might very well be interpreted as
Vincent’s denial that he ever intended a threat, it also serves as validation for the
argument that he did in fact say or write something that could be interpreted as a threat to
shoot up his school. So were the officers, while responding to a report potentially
involving firearms and a threatened school shooting, when confronted by some very
uncooperative parents of the potential shooter, justifiably concerned for their own safety
when the parent suddenly decided to disappear back into her house during an inquiry
about weapons? In my humble opinion; you betcha!
