From Deseret News archives:

Police err over warrant?

U.S. Supreme Court listens to arguments in Brigham City case

Published: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:15 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments from Utah attorneys Monday and now must determine when the law should prohibit police officers from entering a home without a warrant — even if they witness violence inside.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantees people the right to be secure in their homes. The Utah lawyers argued that Brigham City police officers who entered a home in July 2000 and made arrests after they witnessed a teenager punch an adult in the jaw did not violate the Constitution, while the attorney for those arrested said that police had no right to be there.

"Things can change in seconds," Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Gray told the nine justices Monday. "Things can turn deadly."

But Michael Studebaker, the lawyer for Charles Stuart, Shayne Taylor and Sandra Taylor, who were arrested during the 2000 incident, said the facts in this case did not justify police entering the home.

"Where is the line drawn?" he said. "It needs to be more serious than a loud party."

Studebaker said he does not want to see officers regularly entering houses without a warrant just because they see something going on inside. He said he could not see the court prohibiting officers from entering a home in life-threatening situations.

Story continues below
At 3 a.m. on July 23, 2000, four Brigham City police officers went to a residence after hearing complaints about a loud party, according to court documents. They heard noises that sounded like a fight, including yells of "Stop, stop," and "Get off me." They saw four adults restraining a teenager against a refrigerator through a window. The teen broke a hand free and punched one of the adults in the jaw, drawing blood. That prompted one of the officers to open a screen door and yell "Police," although no one heard anything because of the ongoing fight, the court documents state.

The officers then entered the house and eventually made arrests after the occupants became hostile to the police being inside the house, according to the court documents.

But Studebaker argued Monday that the violence had stopped before the officers entered the house, so they knew what was going on and should have stayed outside.

Justice David Souter commented, "It's over until someone throws the next punch."

"They don't know what's going to happen next," Souter added.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought up officers' ability in Utah to get a phone warrant and questioned Gray on why they did not do that. But Gray said time was of the essence in the situation.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

I find it interesting that many of the same people who say that we can't...

Cougs begin bowl preparations

None of these teams is going to be easy. They all have fine football...

Max Hall issues apology

Max, no apology was necessary, but the apology was polically correct. If...

Very good piece of writing, Amy. You summarized what many of us have been...

U. eyes bowl for redemption

How is a top 25 finish make Utah a top twenty team? I think what the poster...

Max Hall issues apology

90% of the BYU & Utah fans have class, and Hall knows it. If you don't...

This might be my favorite article I've ever read from the Deseret News. Kudos.

Y. student vanished in China

Thank you for not giving up and don't give up now brother and sister...

Child prostitutes don't get help

Dr. Lois Lee's work with children who are victims of child sexual...

Look at the preview for Pixar's "Up". The whole move is summarized in...

Advertisements