WASHINGTON - March 25, 2008 - When an unsuspecting drug dealer opens the door to a police informant masquerading as a customer, is he also opening the door for the police to come in and conduct a search of his home without a warrant?
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to answer that question, which has divided the lower federal courts.
Several federal circuits have adopted what has come to be called a consent-once-removed exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The theory is that a suspect who consents to the entry of someone who is really an agent of the police is also, albeit unknowingly, agreeing to let the police enter as well. The police do not need a warrant to enter and search a home if they have the permission of a person authorized to give it.
The new Supreme Court case is an appeal filed by five Utah police officers, members of the Central Utah Narcotics Task Force, who face paying damages to a man in whose home they conducted a search later found to be unconstitutional. The federal appeals court in Denver rejected their claim of immunity. The case presents complex questions of constitutional law, official immunity and the relationship between the two.
AUSTIN, Texas - March 23, 2008 - Federal court on Monday is set to hear the 2005 case of a man beaten by three Austin police officers.
Ramon Hernandez was beaten and shocked with a Taser during a September 2005 arrest for leaving the scene of an accident, a charge that was later dismissed. That following March, two of the officers involved were found not guilty of official oppression.
Only one of the three officers involved in the case still works for the Austin Police Department. Christopher Gray got his job back after serving a 70-day suspension. Officer Joel Follmer was fired, and Brad Heilman resigned.
Yet for Ramon Hernandez, his family and attorneys, the case was never over. They have waited nearly three years for this civil trial.
Video from a dashboard camera showed Ramon Hernandez as he was handcuffed, with his face in an ant bed, and shocked with a Taser 11 times. He was also kicked and punched more than a dozen times.
"I forgive them for what they did in my heart, and with my faith, we all make mistakes, we're all human," Hernandez said.
Yet as he sat with his attorneys Friday, Hernandez said he still wants justice to hold them responsible for their actions.
"Civil rights trials define what is acceptable in our community," said Amber Vazquez Bode, attorney for Hernandez. "They're here to draw the line in the sand and say this is what we accept from our police officers, and this is what we don't."
After his acquittal in 2006 on official oppression charges, Gray spoke out for the first time.
"We're sworn to protect the citizens of Austin, and that's what we did," Gray said in April 2006. "I have no regrets. Faced with the same situation, I would do what I have to all over again."
From the beginning, the officers said the real story is what cannot be seen on the tape: Hernandez was resisting arrest and trying to grab one of their guns.
"When this case went to trial the first time, there were a lot of smoke and mirrors creating the perception that Ramon was a danger that he never really was," said Tim Flocos, attorney for Hernandez. "Their over-aggressive behavior once he was handcuffed and once he was under control, is what's at issue here."
A jury will decide if the officers violated Hernandez's civil rights.
January 19, 2008 - Day by day our civil liberties are eroded in a purposeful campaign to turn this country into a police state. They start with pretending that seat belt laws are designed for safety, when it really just gives the police another reason to pull you over. Same goes for cell phone laws. Then they place cameras at red lights to generate revenue without applying any resources. We all sit silent. I have heard the flawed logic that says, “Well, I don’t break the law, so why would it bother me?” The issue is not whether you feel you break the law, it is the power you concede to others to interpret if THEY feel you are breaking the law. Perhaps the most egregious violations of our civil liberties happen every day when the very people we pay to protect us, instead are killing us. The new weapon of choice is the Taser. Designed to pump electricity into a human being, the Taser has been used inappropriately, and has resulted in the deaths of innocents across this country for far too long now. It is time to remove this weapon from the arsenal of police officers who do not deserve to wear the badges they have.
Continue Reading
