Judge rules against Qualified Immunity for police officer who violated man's 4th Amendment rights.

[woodwork201]

The harm he suffered was the unlawful violations of his 4th Amendment rights.

This mindset, that he suffered no harm or worse yet, even if he did "so what" is why the police have been allowed to get away with these and even more egregious violations all this time.

When I read the article the first time, I missed the link at the bottom to show the rest of the article. In that originally-hidden portion, it says the judge tossed the punitive damages because the cops had good intention. That's just plain asinine. They may have intended to stop crime but they intended to stop crime by violating the rights of someone who they had no evidence was committing a crime. That's absolutely a violation by intent and they need to be sued and jailed.

 

[woodwork201]

I believe the violations of our Constitutional rights should be an arrest able offense.

It is. I posted the law earlier. These cops belong in jail.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So every time a black family rents or buys a house that was previously occupied by a white person, that's reason to call the police?

And every time a white person buys or rents a house that was previously occupied by a black person, that's reason to call the police and for the police to enter the home now of the white family with their guns drawn?

If you know them well enough yes. My neighbor is an older white guy. If I see two black guys in or around his house yes, I'm calling the police. I know who lives there and I know these people should not be there.

Much different than if my elderly white neighbor was a landlord and I'm fully aware of it. The guy next door to me bought the two houses on that property as rental income. Nobody has lived there in a year. If I see new people in and out of either house, it would not be suspicious to me. If it's 2:00 am and I see them leaving the house with copper water pipes, I would call the police.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's an assumption on your part. Did the cop talk to the lady who called in the complaint or did he go into someone's home with his gun drawn completely on the word of the dispatcher with no other investigation. I'm not sure which case would be the greater abuse of power on the part of the cop.

According to the OP it didn't mention the cops talk with the complainant; they seldom do. They get a suspicious character call and they address the problem.

 

[pknopp]

According to the OP it didn't mention the cops talk with the complainant; they seldom do. They get a suspicious character call and they address the problem.

There was no problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What was the probable cause and exigent circumstances. One part of the law and jurisprudence both regarding reasonable suspicion and probable cause is that the police must be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If you're going to defend them without question, you must be able to articulate the reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause that justifies the cop's behavior. Please let us know what that is.

Read all the posts in the topic, I said what that suspicion was repeatedly. There were people in the house that didn't live there.

 

[woodwork201]

What's the difference? Criminals are bold these days. Because he was sitting on the balcony doesn't mean he wasn't in the process of robbing the place. There have been stories of burglars making themselves a snack on the stove of the victims.

So now being anywhere, doing perfectly lawful stuff, is suspicious? I mean the cops have argued that successfully in the courts before. Driving the speed limit is suspicious. Driving cautiously is suspicious.

 

[Jarlaxle]

White 6, I take your laughing response with no answer to my post as your admission that you have no intelligent response to counter my proof that the cop violated Furdge's Constitutional rights.

He's a copsucker.

 

[pknopp]

Read all the posts in the topic, I said what that suspicion was repeatedly. There were people in the house that didn't live there.

They did live there.

 

[woodwork201]

I wouldn't call a neighbor that lives there calling in a potential house robbery zero evidence. Apparently the neighbor did know who lived there and these guys weren't it.

Apparently, absolutely even, the neighbor had no idea who lived there because those guys WERE it.

 

[woodwork201]

She isn't the one who violated his rights.

Exactly. We expect those who have guns and power to put us in handcuffs to be smarter than the idiot neighbor and not blindly do stuff that stupid people ask them to do.

Thank God that Furdge did not grab a legally owned gun when someone entered his house.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We might disagree on whether the word of the neighbor provided reasonable suspicion to search but where was the probable cause to arrest and cuff?

Even to believe there was reasonable suspicion, it has to be what a reasonable or typical person would think. Would a reasonable person think that someone they don't know sitting on a porch was suspicious and that it was an indication that a crime may have been committed? Of course not. There was no reasonable suspicion.

I find it troublesome when so-called conservatives use Supreme Court decisions as proof of anything. In almost every Supreme Court decision, some of those supposedly scholarly men and women vote one way, some vote another. That, in and of itself, is absolute proof that, as a whole, they don't know what the hell they're talking about. When they say guns can be banned, do you quote them as the answer? Of course not.

At most, in any discussion of law, liberty, rights, and the Constitution, the Supreme Court is, at the very best, something to consider. Just because their judicial precedence trumps any lower court, it doesn't make it right. That the Supreme Court has allowed reasonable suspicion as the threshold for a search doesn't change the fact that the Constitution clearly sets the threshold as probable cause.

In 1968, in Terry, the Supreme Court declared the Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment, unconstitutional when they ruled that a cop can search a person when they had reasonable suspicion that a crime was about the be committed - not probable cause and not that a crime had been committed. And the standard they set? No, not that a reasonable person would suspect that a crime was about to be committed but whether a reasonable police officer would think a crime was about to be committed.

They ruled that the legitimate government interests override the Constitution that created the government. And who gets to decide what are the legitimate interests of the government? We used to think that was defined and limited by the Constitution but it turns out that, according to the Supreme Court, it is the government that gets to decide what are the legitimate interests of the government and when their self-determined interests conflict with the Constitution then the Constitution does not apply.

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled, in Connor, to expand reasonable suspicion and reiterated the standard that what was reasonable for the police to do is what the police say is reasonable for the police to do, not what the Constitution says they can do.

No crime was committed by Furdge and there was no probable cause. Not that it should matter, but the officer's suspicion was not reasonable and did not justify his actions in violation of the rights of Furdge.

First of all the guy was never arrested. Police often cuff suspects for their own safety until they can conclude what's going on. I've seen it repeatedly on the classic police show C*O*P*S. I also seen police do the same in my neighborhood. Perfectly legal as the officer explains he is not cuffing the person because they are under arrest. Secondly, what did you want police to do? Since you didn't read any of the past posts, I'll present a scenario I posted earlier:

You come home after being in the hospital for four days. You find your home ransacked and all your valuables gone. Like anybody else, you call the police. Here is how the conversation would go:

This is Mr. Woodwork, and my house was robbed while I was in the hospital.
Sorry to hear that, we'll send somebody down, what is your address?
111 Blaker street.
Oh yes, we were there the other day while your house was being robbed. Your neighbor called it in.
And you didn't do anything?
No we didn't, our officer knocked at the door, but nobody answered. Apparently they were on the phone or had some music on.
So what did your officer do?
Nothing, he just went back to his car and came back to the station.
Why didn't he go into my home to check things out???
We didn't know if he should be there or not, and we didn't want to violate his constitutional rights!

Tell me you'd be okay with this if it actually happened.

 

[woodwork201]

Karen is the one that gave the police reasonable suspicion a crime might be taking place. They had to follow up. It is their job.

Wrong. That's not reasonable suspicion.

A tip can generate reasonable suspicion when the informant describes a crime taking place. The informant in this case could not describe a crime and that's what the police should have determined. A 2 minute conversation with the neighbor would have demonstrated that there was no crime. The police could have reasonably knocked on the door and waited for a response, gone to the back door and knocked, as well. Having a friendly, voluntary, conversation with Furdge would have been reasonable. Beyond that, there's nothing else the police could do.

 

[woodwork201]

The cops had no way of knowing that when they arrived at the scene

They also had nothing to indicate that the house was being robbed.

 

[woodwork201]

Well if police cuffed me in my own residence I'd be on the phone to a lawyer before they were out the door.

And, in fact, I would have asked for an attorney before telling them anything. When you're arrested, and being cuffed is arrested, do not talk to the police.

 

[woodwork201]

How would you punch in the numbers?

When the cuffs came off, my next words would be, "Hold on, please, while I call my attorney."

 

[White 6]

White 6, I take your laughing response with no answer to my post as your admission that you have no intelligent response to counter my proof that the cop violated Furdge's Constitutional rights.

What did you say the criminal charges were? I have been unclear on this, from the start. Is this a lawsuit seeking monetary damages or a criminal trial? I see no damage. I will wait to see the award on cases like this. I am pleased with the conduct of the officers involved.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've had my car broken into 3 times in the past 10 years. My home broken into and robbed 1 time in the past 10 years. 3 other times in the past 10 years I caught the perpetrators trying to break in my home - actually pushing on the door, prying on the door, and just about to kick in the door, respectively - and scared them off before they could get in.

Even though the neighborhood I live in is fairly mixed race neighborhood, about 40% Hispanic, 40% white, 20% black, each and every case where I've had criminals try to cause me or mine harm, it has been a white person.

I understand the statistics nation wide, in South-side Chicago, Baltimore, etc. Even so, my personal experience is completely different so I generally expect or assume a white person when a crime happens around me. Probably you and I both should just not make assumptions at all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'd like to see the cops shit-canned and the neighbor that called charged.

Charged with what? Criminals of our country love people like you. You make their crimes so easy to do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

and that is not Reasonable Suspicion of a crime being committed.

it's reasonable suspicion to enter a house where a potential crime is taking place.