Update on the incident?
Update from the Tuscaloosa Police Department about an hour ago on Facebook:
The is a crock. The cop who initiated the tazing needs to be charged with assault and put in jail.
So basically nothing happened. What a shame.
So there were three cops who were suspended – the main responder at the door, the tazer officer and the nightstick officer. Do we know which two are the ones who (basically) have been absolved of any serious misconduct?
As I said above, the cops on this one could have done a better job of de-escalating things for sure. But there really wasn’t any serious police misconduct as a legal matter.
This one was mostly about the belligerent and wrongful conduct of the kids. Which misconduct was fueled by (i) their intoxication and (ii) their certain (but mistaken) view of the law applicable to the situation.
@northwesty The kids were acting entirely within the law. The actions of the police were unlawful. What you are saying is entirely wrong. The police officer who grabbed the student is guilty of criminal assault, although obviously when the foxes are in charge of the hen house he will not be charged. I believe these kids can sue in federal court for a violation of their fourth amendment rights, which is a tort pursuant to the Bivens v. Unnamed Agents case.
Entering an apartment without a warrant after being told “no” is serious misconduct; it’s hard to think of anything more serious. In Indiana such an officer made be repelled with deadly force. Too bad Alabama doesn’t have such a law.
Earl – you need to read the case law on “open doorway” situations. And also “hot pursuit” cases. And the cases on actions taken “incident to arrest.” And also the cases on “threat to an officer.” Then give us your 4th amendment thoughts.
Since 2 of the 3 officers involved have been reinstated without any legal consequences after a very public videotaped incident, it would seem that your view didn’t hold water legally. TBD what happens to officer #3.
Kids really shouldn’t aggressively play the “I know my rights” game unless (i) they actually correctly know what their rights are, and (ii) they are sober. 0 for 2.
The legally smart thing to do would have been to not open the door. But they did. That’s a mistake on them. And opening the door completely changes their legal rights, which they did not understand (but the cop did).
The other smart thing to have done would be to step outside and close the door behind them. They didn’t do that either.
also, the cops should not randomly beat people.
but, that’s what happens when government expands beyond control.
Many states have ‘make my day’ laws. They do not allow deadly force to be used unless fear for life is involved, and some do require a retreat if possible. These students knew they were police officers entering, and it would be very hard for them to claim they feared for their lives. They might have feared being arrested, or feared their property might be removed (the source of the music), but I’d have a hard time believing they were fearful the cops were there to take their lives.
https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/5827610-The-Castle-Doctrine-and
This article is about the Castle Doctrine in Indiana, and states that there is still a common law exception for police to enter a ‘castle’ if the fact warrant it, and points out that even if the law existed in its current version, the police in the Barnes case could have overcome it because a second homeowner, the wife, ‘invited’ them in with her 911 call for help.
I could not find any cases where the new law has been tested. I would not want to be the one who fired at a police officer and relied on the law that he had no right to be in my home if I knew it was a cop.
It will be quite interesting if/when we find out what happens to the third cop and what that cop’s role was.
I’d guess that the tazer cop is in the clear. From his vantage point, he has to assist the officer who is trying to make an arrest (good or bad arrest doesn’t matter) and who might be in peril once he disappears from view inside the apartment door. Tazing the kid helps get the kid down on the ground, complete the arrest (again, good or bad arrest doesn’t matter), and diffuse a dicey situation.
I personally would discipline the nightstick officer. The kid is down on the ground and subdued at that point. That force wasn’t necessary. But nightstick cop might be excused for similar reasons as tazer cop was given that his actions occur over the course of just a few seconds.
As noted above, I think the cop at the door was mostly acting within the law given the open doorway and given that he’s trying to make an arrest. I also think he showed significant patience while the drunk kids belligerantly screamed out their moronic legal theories and kept escalating their behavior. But I would fault him for not showing even MORE patience, even though his legal grounds were solid.
My guess is that the door cop is the one who is still being investigated given his primary actor role in the incident.
@northwesty I a familiar with the various laws you mention. Police officers often lie to justify their actions to fit into one of these exceptions; in the Tuscaloose case they did not, which is pretty amazing. There was a similar case at Mizzou recently where the police claimed to smell pot to justify an entry and search. Of course there was no pot; it was all a lie.
In an “open doorway” case, they must see some crime to enter an apartment. They saw no crime. There was no “hot pursuit.” The guy was charged with resisting arrest, but he was not being arrested for anything. One of the elements of resisting arrest is that you must be subject to a lawful arrest. There was only one charge: resisting arrest. This cannot stand by itself.
The police chief is on the record as saying these kids were in the right and the police officers were in the wrong. That’s all that really needs to be said. He said the officers had absolute no right to enter the apartment and that the kids were absolutely in the right. The fact is that police officers are not always fired when they do something wrong. Now, as for your claim that the legally smart thing to do would be to step outside, as soon as he does so he can be arrested for public drunk, so that would not have been legally smart.
What is needed is for the police officer who grabbed the guy to be prosecuted and to go to jail.
I think he was patiently waiting for back up to arrive until he felt safe enough to enter the apartment and kick some butt.
Darn police! Who do they think they are, communications professors at Mizzou?