Civil Rights as pertains to Arrest

[OuTcAsT]

We recently discussed rights as they pertain to arrest, here is another example from my neck of the woods, will be interesting to see how this plays out:

Men Face Charges After Police Raid Wrong House

Feb 26, 2009 10:05 PM CST www.newschannel5.com
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A father and son are furious after surviving a terrifying experience. They face criminal charges after police responded to their home by mistake.
Murfreesboro officers responded to a 911 emergency call and somehow ended up at the wrong apartment.
Roger and Justin Chilton woke to a pounding on their door at 3 a.m. Sunday. Justin - a decorated military policeman who had just returned from Iraq - answered the door holding his gun.
The officers then arrested Justin and his father.
"They held us at gunpoint, slammed us to the ground, stomped my hands and butted me in the back of the head with a shotgun," said Justin.
The officers charged the Chilton's with resisting arrest and aggravated assault for the incident.
Police did not drop the charges even after learning they responded to the wrong house.
Murfreesboro police chief Glenn Chrisman has opened an internal investigation.

NOTE: This thread in NOT for LE bashing, if you have nothing to say other than that, please don't post.

I cannot fathom how these men can be charged with these crimes when they have done nothing wrong, how can this be? Any of you LE or Barristers?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My guess would be that even if they did nothing wrong, they still had no right to resist arrest (though I am not familiar with TN law and could be wrong on that point). So those charges would still be valid.

I imagine the proescuting attorney is refusing to take them off the table because he realizes they will be facing a civil suit soon and doesn't want to give away the only leverage he has.

[Wildalaska]

Not enough information to give an educated comment, sorry

WildneedsmoreAlaska ™

[zukiphile]

I imagine the proescuting attorney is refusing to take them off the table because he realizes they will be facing a civil suit soon and doesn't want to give away the only leverage he has.

Yes, or effectively provide support to the suit by withdrawing charges.

My guess would be that even if they did nothing wrong, they still had no right to resist arrest (though I am not familiar with TN law and could be wrong on that point). So those charges would still be valid.

This isn't my area of expertise, but I understand that in some states one is not entitled to resist even an illegal arrest.

[Semi-jacketed]

More facts are certainly needed, but it also depends upon your state's laws. In Louisiana, a citizen does have the right to resist an unlawful arrest (i.e., an arrest without merit due to no evidence, warrant, or criminal conduct observed by the arrested party), but you had better be correct, well-connected and be arrested by officer(s) that don't, uh, embellish.

For example, a case I investigated years ago involved a man involved peripherally in a vicious barfight resulting in numerous injuries requiring a trip to the hospital by some of the participants. Officers responded, took control of the situation and ordered this particular man outside after some interviews. As the man was moving outside, another officer decided that this man had not moved quickly enough, and promptly attempted to arrest him for failing to obey a lawful order and remaining while forbidden, etc. Well, when the officer placed his hands on the man rudely to cuff him, the man immediately knocked the officer out. Much chaos ensued for a very brief moment and the man was cuffed and stuffed with felony assault of a police officer added to new charges of resisting arrest and other fun things.

Ultimately, it was determined that the officer was making an unlawful arrest as the man was doing as told while the officer was simply being a bully and had unnecessarily assaulted the man. Since it was deemed the officer started the whole unfortunate series of events by his illegal conduct all other charges were tossed. The man decided not to press charges against the officer after a small sum was paid.

So, there you go, it depends. In most states where I have observed the laws, most citizens do not have the right to resist an unlawful arrest or provide any resistance to an officer on the scene to include hard looks and risque language (i.e., disrespecting and provocation)-- good training for subjects thereby making no arrest unlawful in point of fact if not in theory.

Personally, it's always best to be very nice and pleasant while being arrested even if angry about the error and go after them in court for their criminal actions (If someone puts their hands on you without a lawful reason or permission it is a crime. Do it under the authority of government and it's even more of a crime as more laws have been broken.) like they would go after you had you been an actual criminal.

[OuTcAsT]

This is from the local newspaper account:

Officers conducting welfare check on man, 20; multiple charges filed
•
BY MARK BELL • MBELL@DNJ.COM • FEBRUARY 24, 2009
A Murfreesboro man is charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a police officer after he pulled a gun on two officers conducting a welfare check at his home early Sunday, according to police.
Justin T. Chilton, 20, also faces charges of possession of a firearm under 21, possession of a firearm while under the influence, and underage consumption after the incident at his Campus Crossings South apartment on South Rutherford Boulevard.


MPD Officer Matthew Garrett and Officer Brad Premo were called to the apartment just after 3 a.m. after a 911 call from inside. When they arrived, Garrett knocked on the door and identified himself.
"A gentleman (later identified as Chilton) responded by telling both officers, 'I advise you two to move away from my door,'" Garrett reported. "We responded by identifying ourselves as police officers telling him we needed to talk to him. He told us to back away from the door."
Moments into giving Chilton further instructions, Chilton swung the door open "screaming and pointed a handgun at myself and (Premo). Chilton then slammed the door."
The officers took cover and secured the door, according to the report. After repeatedly asking Chilton to drop the weapon and exit, Chilton, as well as his father, Roger, exited.
"(Premo) secured both subjects while I secured the weapon," Garrett reported. "Justin Chilton had the obvious odor of an intoxicant about his person and admitted to have been drinking."
After checking Chilton's driver's license, he was arrested and taken to jail.
Chilton, who was booked in on $25,000 bond, will appear in court April 29.

I Believe this account was BEFORE the TV coverage cited previously. Will update as details come out.

[Wildalaska]

Well I guess that answers the question

WildgoodbustAlaska ™

[BillCA]

First order of business for their lawyer, besides arranging bail, is to subpenoa the 911 tapes of this call from inside.

I'd like to know the "triggering event" for the incident.

anyone else feel that the police version of events doesn't quite "gel" for them? If they're charging him with underage drinking, why not charge the father for letting him drink in the apartment?

[OuTcAsT]

I'd like to know the "triggering event" for the incident.

That is the tricky part Bill, what the newspaper does not say is the fact that this:

MPD Officer Matthew Garrett and Officer Brad Premo were called to the apartment just after 3 a.m. after a 911 call from inside

And this:

after the incident at his Campus Crossings South apartment on South Rutherford Boulevard.


Was due to the fact that the call came from the Campus Crossings North complex. The TV station brought out this fact on air, but it is not in the printed version I provided.

The LEOs were clearly at the wrong address.

WA: The newspaper account came out before the TV account, the fact that they were at the wrong address did not surface till later. Under that premise, still a "Good Bust"?:confused:

[Wildalaska]

WA: The newspaper account came out before the TV account, the fact that they were at the wrong address did not surface till later. Under that premise, still a "Good Bust"?

Yep.

Think about it. Critically. Free T Shirt if you can argue it is.

Mind you my words "good bust" reflect the facts as shown, not facts that may come out

WildgoodluckAlaska ™

[JuanCarlos]

WA: The newspaper account came out before the TV account, the fact that they were at the wrong address did not surface till later. Under that premise, still a "Good Bust"?

While obviously it's likely vary from state to state, generally pointing a firearm (or brandishing one in general) at somebody who is not currently on your property or posing a threat to you is going to get you into legal trouble. Doubly so for a police officer who has identified himself as such.

The fact that the police had the wrong address to begin with doesn't absolve him of the other crimes he allegedly committed upon their arrival (or other crimes he was currently engaging in, namely the underage firearm possession and underage alcohol consumption).

The two in parenthesis may not be laws you agree with, but they're laws the police are well within their duties to enforce.


EDIT: Put it this way, if I were the one wearing the badge I'd have apologized for disturbing him at that hour then arrested him for how he handled it. And I'm generally pretty critical of many law enforcement policies and actions. But this is not a botched SWAT raid on the wrong address, these cops knocked on his door and he allegedly threatened them with a firearm. Taking these things at face value, this is as good a bust as any, and better than most.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Justin T. Chilton, 20, also faces charges of possession of a firearm under 21

Well considering Tennessee Code Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 only prohibits possession of a handgun by those under the age of 18, I am wondering where they came up with this charge? It isn't a federal charge since there is no Federal ban on possession by of a handgun by someone under 21yrs.

Sounds like that news story is wrong on a number of details.

Mind you my words "good bust" reflect the facts as shown, not facts that may come out

Sooooo.... the initial post doesn't have enough information to make an educated comment; but the subsequent news story which has several glaring errors in it on its face, is enough information to make an educated comment that it was a "good bust" based on the facts shown?

[JuanCarlos]

I'd say more facts need to be presented to truly determine whether it was a good arrest, but it sounds like at some point during the police visit the law was broken. Assuming that any of these accusations are true, the fact that the police were at the wrong house is irrelevant. Yet the police having the wrong house seemed to be a primary concern to the OP.

[vranasaurus]

If the man did in fact point a gun at a police officer it is a good bust. The police or anyone else knocking on your door is not justification to point a gun at anyone.

The law was broken while the police were there so they made an arrest.

[Wildalaska]

JuanC, good to see you and your posts are spot on.
PM me to where I send the T-Shirt

WildgoodtoseesomefolksthinkAlaska ™

[vranasaurus]

I don't really care for the term "raid" as used in the initial posts article.

Had the police executed a no knock warrant at 3 AM that would be a raid. And doing so at the wrong address could create all kinds of problems. But this does not appear to be a "raid".

[Semi-jacketed]

If the media reports above are true, the officers knocked on the wrong door (Big deal), and asked a guy to step out who then became belligerent while waving a weapon around? Yeah, he screwed up. I don't see where anything the police did was improper as released. Even if he would've I.D.'d himself and they realized it was the wrong address his behavior warranted the bracelets.

People forget about the being nice part. Saves a bunch of grief even, no especially, if you end up drawing the attention of the D.A.'s Office.

[OuTcAsT]

Think about it. Critically

Fair enough. The facts as presented are, if I read correctly:

1. The police received a 911 call from a residence and responded to investigate.

2. They arrived at the correct apartment number, just the wrong building. At this point nobody inside that apartment had (as far as the responding LEOs knew) done anything illegal.

3. The officers knocked on the door, and the occupant apparently answered thru the door. When they arrived, Garrett knocked on the door and identified himself.


The "Thru the door" part comes from this:

"A gentleman (later identified as Chilton) responded by telling both officers, 'I advise you two to move away from my door,'" Garrett reported This would seem to indicate that he did not open the door at this time.

So, thus far critical thinking dictates a question; if you are inside your residence, and someone knocks on the door claiming to be the police, are you required by law to open the door?

And would any reasonable person go to the door at 0300 with a firearm in hand to see what the problem was?

Facts also presented that the occupant had no reason to believe that he needed the police, and asked them (rudely mind you) to leave his property.

Are the police required to do so? as no crime has yet been committed, nor a warrant yet exists.


Chilton swung the door open "screaming and pointed a handgun at myself and (Premo). Chilton then slammed the door

Is this brandishing ? in your own home?

And as has been pointed out:

Well considering Tennessee Code Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 only prohibits possession of a handgun by those under the age of 18, I am wondering where they came up with this charge? It isn't a federal charge since there is no Federal ban on possession by of a handgun by someone under 21yrs

So was this the point a crime took place?

I know there is law that allows police to use "Plain sight" IE: the alcohol charge, But if I read all this correctly, then an officer could knock on any random door, ask you to submit to an examination with no reason, and if he does find something during this fishing trip, you can be charged?

Or if you refuse you are resisting?

I am evidently ignorant of these laws so please elaborate, I find this very educational.

[Wildalaska]

I am evidently ignorant of these laws so please elaborate, I find this very educational.

OK...IMHO you are doing well, but you are making a critical mistake in analysis at this stage of the game...

Thats is...you are focusing on each individual element of the incident instead of the totality of the circumstances....

Any individual element of any factual scenario can be attacked, twisted, digested, run up the flagpole and chopped down, but does that change the big picture?

here, you have a scenario where the following is purportedly uncontested: the police, in the course of their official duties and in the course of an investigation, went to the wrong residence where they knocked at the door. They were confronted with an armed intoxcicated man who pointed a gun at them. They arrested him.

Here is a premise: As a matter of common sense rules of life, one does not have the right to point a handgun at a police officer while intoxicated

WildagainwearenttalkingguiltorinnocenceherejustthearrestAlaska ™

[OuTcAsT]

OK...IMHO you are doing well

Thank You,

you are making a critical mistake in analysis at this stage of the game...

Thats is...you are focusing on each individual element of the incident instead of the totality of the circumstances....



OK, then at this stage of the game I will concede that the totality of the circumstances would lead one to conclude that the arrest of the son for the assult and resisting arrest may stand for the moment, I am having a hard time with the inclusion of the father at this point but, I will also concede his arrest proper. I do however reserve the right to redirect once more facts are available. You will see updates as I can get them.



againwearenttalkingguiltorinnocenceherejustthearrest

Gotitthefastballisinthefinalpitch.

[shortwave]

IMHO,the point the law was broken was when Justin pointed gun at LEO`S. Might I add he`s lucky to be alive. LEO`S made a mistake on address, did Justin have to open door,don`t think so. Also if Justin thought cops were phony(it happens) a 911 call to dispatcher by Justin would have straightened call location mistake out. You simply can`t open your door and point a gun at person(LEO or not) standing on the other side of it simply cause you don`t want them standing there. Wrong address yes! Good 'Bust' yes.

[OuTcAsT]

Here is a bit more on the story, from the Murfreesboro Post. Emphasis Mine.

Father, Iraqi war vet file complaint with MPD
By: Lisa Marchesoni

Posted: Friday, February 27, 2009 5:20 pm


Murfreesboro Police are investigating a call where an Iraqi war veteran was charged with pulling a firearm on two officers apparently answering a 911 call at the wrong address.
Officers Matt Garrett and Brad Premo responded to the 911 call about 3:30 a.m. Sunday at Campus Crossing South to do a welfare check. They reported they knocked on the door and identified themselves as police officers.

Garrett reported Justin T. Chilton, 20, of 2707 S. Rutherford Blvd. told the officers to back away from the door, screamed and pointed a handgun at them. Garrett charged him with two counts of aggravated assault on police officers, possession of a firearm under age 21, possession of a firearm under the influence and underage consumption of alcohol.

Premo charged his father, Roger Chilton, 51, of Meadow Court with public intoxication and resisting arrest.

Attorney Jack Mitchell, who represents the father and son on the criminal charges, said dispatchers sent the officers to Campus Crossing North.

“They went to (Campus Crossing) South by mistake,” Mitchell said.

Justin Chilton served in Iraq and returned home one month ago, the attorney said.

“Based on what I have been told, he acted as any homeowner would do but was probably more level-headed because of his training,” Mitchell said.

The father and son filed a complaint with Murfreesboro Police.

Police Chief Glenn Chrisman said Internal Affairs is reviewing all information including arrest reports, tapes and the conversation about the call for service.

“The officers that were involved are on duty and were not put on administrative leave,” Chrisman said.

Internal Affairs talked to the Chiltons and are following up on the investigation.

“Based on what we know now, they did go to the wrong address,” Chrisman said, adding Internal Affairs will look at what the officers were confronted with as part of the probe.


More as it becomes available.

[shortwave]

Hmmm! If father was in the house and didn`t come out till he was told to do so by LEO, why did he get charged with public intox.? As far as charges on son:IMO this is a classic thats never made since to me. We can take our 18yr. olds into the military, train them with some of the most sophisticated killing weapons and technique`s used for killing,turn em loose overseas to fight and get their butts shot at, but come back home and can`t own(posses) till 21yrs. old. Before someone jumps in and says "this thread right here is why 21 or under can`t posses firearm". Please don`t. In many cases I`d rather be around some of the young GI`S that`s just had weapon`s training then some older guys I`ve been shooting/hunting around. To date(with info given) I still feel Justin should have been arrested for pointing gun at LEO. Of course unless there`s a whole lot more to this story thats not being told and those intimate details are the reason`s for these specific charges. I.E. Father willingly coming out of the house during confrontation son was having with LEO over pulling guns and gets involved. As far as Jack Mitchell`s (attorney) statement of Chilton acting as any normal homeowner would??? Note to self: Never ever knock on Jack Mitchell`s door unless invited. Do not get his address by mistake.

[chibiker]

Y'all can argue right or wrong about the events, that is what the post was intended for.... however my curiosity lies in what happened involving the 911 call at the RIGHT address??

As a sidenote.... and I am not defending the yute, if two men show up at my door in the middle of the night claiming to be police officers and I didn't call them, I am not coming out and they are not coming in till I am 100% sure they are indeed cops... Who knows how tempers may play a role in that situation? Could be good or bad from either side.

[OuTcAsT]

can`t own(posses) till 21yrs. old

In Tennessee you may own a gun of any type at 18, just cannot get a CCW permit for carry off your property. as pointed out earler by :

Bartholomew Roberts

Well considering Tennessee Code Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 only prohibits possession of a handgun by those under the age of 18, I am wondering where they came up with this charge? It isn't a federal charge since there is no Federal ban on possession by of a handgun by someone under 21yrs

I think the only charge they might make stick as far as "Underage" would be the alcohol, and they probably won't get that unless they did a blood or other test. Personal experience says that unless the officer saw him with the bottle this charge will get dismissed.

Hmmm! If father was in the house and didn`t come out till he was told to do so by LEO, why did he get charged with public intox.?

good question, waiting for more info on this myself.

[Paul B.]

"So, thus far critical thinking dictates a question; if you are inside your residence, and someone knocks on the door claiming to be the police, are you required by law to open the door?"

As far as I am concerned, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

"And would any reasonable person go to the door at 0300 with a firearm in hand to see what the problem was?"

I've you've lived in some of the placed I've had to due to financial circumstances. I'd durn tootin". We've been having some home invasions where one drug outfit pretends to be the law and does a SWAT type raid.
You can darn well bet I'll be armed if someone knocks on my door at 0300 hours.
Paul B.

[vranasaurus]

There is a difference between being armed when answering the door at 3AM, which I would do, and opening the door while pointing a gun at a police officer.

If you think you need to point a gun at the person who is a your door you have no business opening your door.

If you are that unsure if the people at your door are in fact police I would not open the door and would place a call to 911.

[Wildalaska]

There is a difference between being armed when answering the door at 3AM, which I would do, and opening the door while pointing a gun at a police officer.

If you think you need to point a gun at the person who is a your door you have no business opening your door.

If you are that unsure if the people at your door are in fact police I would not open the door and would place a call to 911.

Isn't it just amazing how simple life can be? Someone is banging on your door screaming police police get on that phone to 911 and get those tapes running before you decide to rambo:D

WildlifeisgrandisntitAlaska ™

[Wagonman]

I agree with Wild----It goes back to the resisting arrest post. Comply on scene, litigate Monday morning.

I am sorry, it is not reasonable for law abiding citizen to actively not answer the door for the Police. I won't even touch on the brandishing of a weapon :eek:

Don't want to talk to the Police---fine, don't answer door. Then I would have to get a warrant and you won't be bothered, unless, there are exigent circumstances---hot pursuit, threat to life, etc.

In the words of Dalton---"BE NICE"

[OuTcAsT]

I am going to ask a couple of questions that pertain to the circumstances under which the arrest being discussed was made.



Wagonman,

You said:


Don't want to talk to the Police---fine, don't answer door. Then I would have to get a warrant and you won't be bothered, unless, there are exigent circumstances---hot pursuit, threat to life, etc.


Let's play hypotheticals for a moment, let's say that a 911 call (for this question it is a "hang-up") and you are dispatched for a check. You wind up at the wrong address somehow, and go to the door and knock.

If I am inside, hear the knock, hear someone announce "Police" and decide to remain quietly inside and not answer the door, how will this be handled?

Will you simply walk away since you have no warrant, and that's it?


And under the same circumstances, if I do open my mouth and tell you your services are not required, that I did not call, am I somehow now bound by some law to open the door?

As you read these questions please remember, I ask only to try and learn, these are not jabs at the officers at all. I am trying to be clear on how this type of thing is actually handled.

[treo]

Isn't it just amazing how simple life can be? Someone is banging on your door screaming police police get on that phone to 911 and get those tapes running before you decide to rambo


I agree W/ WA

[Wagonman]

If I am inside, hear the knock, hear someone announce "Police" and decide to remain quietly inside and not answer the door, how will this be handled?

Will you simply walk away since you have no warrant, and that's it?

--------------------------------------------------------------

I would radio my dispatcher and get a "callback" if there is no answer or voice mail I code out the job and jump back in the squad and leave with a hearty HI HO SILVER AWAY!!!

=========================================================




And under the same circumstances, if I do open my mouth and tell you your services are not required, that I did not call, am I somehow now bound by some law to open the door?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on the situation, if I have a REASONABLE suspicion something is going on that requires my intervention i.e. domestic battery, burglary etc. I can and will boot the door and handcuff everyone I think is a bad guy, and sort it out in the interview room at the station.


That said, for me and just about any Copper I have worked with it has to be pretty cut and dried and the spidey sense has to be tingling for me to get into that kind of play.

I understand the Civil Liberty arguement but, REASONABLE people will cooperate with a Police Officer investigating a crime as long as the the Police Officer is being REASONABLE.

It is not UNREASONABLE to talk to a Police Officer that knocks on your door.

It is not illegal to not talk to a Police Officer that knocks on your door. But, decisions have consequences.

If there is a "threat" to you it is not from a street cop it is from someone with a gold badge and wing tips

[OuTcAsT]

Thanks Wagonman for the explaination, it does offer a "Street Cop's" point of view. Not that I disagree with it, just trying to gain some perspective as this story unfolds. And thanks for the job you (and others here) do.

[Joe Botz]

I had a similar experience with the Suffolk County Police Department on Long Island, New York. Same situation, after cuffing me in me under wear and taking me out of my Home(domain), they did a total search of my House without my permission in fact I told them they did not have my permission, they found to NY State grandfather "pre-ban rifles. They interrogated me at the precinct. And threw me in a holding cell,,this happened at 1 am, with a bunch of skells,,bear in mind I was never given the chance to put clothing on and was also bare footed. In their reports they noted that I did not resist arrest. They arrested me for menacing a police officer,,bear in mind they entered my home, before I could get to the door. Besides the idiots charged me with 2 felonies possession of 2 assault rifles! I was arraigned before the court still in my under wear and bare feet. As a retired NYDC(Rikers Island) Captain, I knew they screwed the pooch! Well a simple BATF check of the serial numbers would have opened their eyes immediately! So their I am before the Judge, I let him know of their total disregard for my Constitutional rights and that in fact they entered the wrong home,,and that if the morons checked the serial numbers etc. I would not have been violated as such as these nonprofessional's were.

Well, back to the holding cell,,then after a couple of hours I was before his Honor and released!


Well, my wife who is a Cop returned home in the morning and asked the detectives searching and tearing about our home what the hell were they doing! One SCPD's finest said do you always keep a machine gun in your house! AR-15,,complete idiots. ca-ching!

If I was African-american Al Sharton would have been marching his mob in front my local pct.!


Boy did the shtf! The NYS SIC (Attorney jerks headed by Andrew the liberal as father where of no help),,The FBI could give a sht! So We sued them in Federal Court! Well, my kids can go to any University the want now.

[Wagonman]

Good on you. Sorry for you aggravation.

[cracked91]

I am taking an LE class right now, as I am getting ready to apply for the Police force, and they way it was presented to me, according to federal law, it is a citizens right to resist unlawful arrest. But the catch is proving it is gonna be really hard to do. 95 percent of the time if you aren't guilty I would say the best option would be to let them take you downtown, get a bail bond, (if you need one), and then prove your not guilty in court, because if they decide it was a lawful arrest, you are going to face charges of resisting arrest.

[ilbob]

There is no good answer to this kind of situation. The cops screwed up, as did the HO. It seems alcohol may have played a role.

I don't have a problem with someone answering a pounding on the door at 3am with a gun in hand. Seems like a perfectly rational thing to do IMO.

Pointing a gun at anyone (if that is what actually happened) that you have no intention to shoot is a real bad idea.

Its unlikely we anyone will ever know what really happened. In most cases like this there is a story the police have that they stick to, and a story that the other side has that they stick to. No way to tell with any certainty who is telling the truth. Its even quite possible both sides believe their own stories.

[OuTcAsT]

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m3d9-Cops-press-charges-against-men-who-scared-them


This was an interesting take on this incident by the civil liberties examiner. ^^


Its unlikely we anyone will ever know what really happened. In most cases like this there is a story the police have that they stick to, and a story that the other side has that they stick to. No way to tell with any certainty who is telling the truth. Its even quite possible both sides believe their own stories.




I believe this is going to court in a few days, hopefully some new light will be shed. will post as news surfaces.

[OuTcAsT]

A bit more has come to light on this incident, seems the officers did NOT identify themselves. heads are starting to roll.

Police Officer, Dispatcher May Face Suspension

Posted: March 16, 2009 08:41 PM CDT



Murfreesboro Officer, Dispatcher Face Suspension
3:21







MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - A police officer and an emergency dispatcher face suspension in Rutherford County after a bizarre mistake and claims of unprofessional conduct.

NewsChannel 5 reporter Nick Beres obtained police video and audio of the incident that all began with a prank 911 call.

The problem is police were dispatched to the wrong address. What happened next has become an embarrassment to the Murfreesboro Police Department.

Police rushed to a call for help at Campus Crossings apartment in Murfreesboro last month. The problem was that they went to the wrong apartment.

Police arrested Roger Chilton and his son Justin. The arrest came after a frightened Justin, a military police officer who just returned from Iraq, answered the door with a gun.

"I thought someone was breaking into the house. Nobody identified themselves," said Roger.

"We had some issues with the language and the behavior of one of our officers on the scene that night," said police spokesperson Kyle Evans.

Evans said Officer Carl Watts faces suspension for his conduct.

Watts could be heard during an audio recording of the incident yelling at Justin's pregnant girlfriend to get on the floor.

"Roll over on your back," he told her. After she said she was pregnant, she said Watts had no sympathy.

An official complaint quotes the officer as saying, "I don't give a ----. You've already ----- up your life by being a pregnant teenager."

Remember, this all happened after police were sent to the wrong address - a bad dispatcher mistake made worse by Officer Watts' conduct.

"A simple typo or computer entry can significantly change so many people's lives," said Evans.

As far as the police department is concerned, Evans said one mistake should not have led to the other.

"Unprofessional behavior on behalf of the police officers is never justified," said Evans.

The dispatcher, Desi' Thorpe, also faces suspension. Police supervisor Sgt. Mike Turner has been talked to about avoiding such situations in the future.

That's great for the future, but the Chilton's wonder about the past. Both still face criminal prosecution for answering the door and pointing a gun at an officer - some one they originally thought was an intruder.

The district attorney won't drop the resisting arrest and aggravated assault charges, even though police admit they went to the wrong home.

General Whitsell said that mistake alone does not clear the Chilton's of their conduct when the police arrived.

Murfreesboro police say such mix-ups on 911 calls are extremely rare, and the department is reviewing policies to make sure everything possible is being done to make sure such a mistake doesn't happen again.



A link to some disturbing video here:

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=10017849

[OuTcAsT]

Earlier in this thread Wild suggested that I critically anaylize this case not on individual circumstances, but on the face of circumstances as a whole.

So far these are the conclusions I can reach from facts and commentary by professional LE ;


If a 911 call is dispatched to your address LE is going to respond, if you do not answer the door there are 2 possible outcomes...

I would radio my dispatcher and get a "callback" if there is no answer or voice mail I code out the job and jump back in the squad and leave with a hearty HI HO SILVER AWAY!!!



Or...

if I have a REASONABLE suspicion something is going on that requires my intervention i.e. domestic battery, burglary etc. I can and will boot the door and handcuff everyone I think is a bad guy, and sort it out in the interview room at the station

Now with that in mind, someone suggested that if you are not sure if it is a police officer at the door (as was this case) that you call 911 to confirm.

I wonder if the officers are going to just stand around and wait for this to happen or...

I can and will boot the door and handcuff everyone I think is a bad guy, and sort it out in the interview room at the station.


Either way, it appears thus far that you have no rights if LE wants to speak with you. You will either comply with the "Reasonable" demand that you submit to a search of you and your premesis, regardless of the situation, or you are going to be a criminal, and charged as such, then litigate it out in court.

The fact that you have no rights in your own home, and to live without fear that this can happen to anyone , at any time. is very troublesome to me.

I may change my mind as this moves forward, but right now it really seems quite screwed up.

[Wagonman]

Now with that in mind, someone suggested that if you are not sure if it is a police officer at the door (as was this case) that you call 911 to confirm.

I wonder if the officers are going to just stand around and wait for this to happen or...



If you say I am calling 911 to confirm you are the Police then I can wait a couple of minutes for that to occur. However, I might just say "Hey Einstein, look out your window and see the car with the sparkly blue lights.

Unless, I hear fighting or crying or verbal threats from the other side of the door in which case----Game On

Either way, it appears thus far that you have no rights if LE wants to speak with you. You will either comply with the "Reasonable" demand that you submit to a search of you and your premesis, regardless of the situation, or you are going to be a criminal, and charged as such, then litigate it out in court.

The fact that you have no rights in your own home, and to live without fear that this can happen to anyone , at any time. is very troublesome to me.

I may change my mind as this moves forward, but right now it really seems quite screwed up


You do have rights. but, I have to be able to do my job.

The flipside is :

I go to home I hear furniture crashing, "stop hitting me", kids crying, etc but no answer to knocking or someone out of breath cracking the door and saying "everything's fine officer" so I leave without entering house.

One hour later the homicide victim daughter calls 911 because Mommy isn't waking up.

Then I am fired and probably charged and sued.

But, on the bright side I respected the offenders right against illegal search.

[Wildalaska]

Damned if you do and damned if you dont

And no matter what, beat up by a lawyer

Thats why I passed on NYPD so many, many years ago

WildtheessenceoflawenforcementAlaska ™

[OuTcAsT]

"Hey Einstein, look out your window and see the car with the sparkly blue lights.


LOL :D

You do have rights. but, I have to be able to do my job.

The flipside is :

I go to home I hear furniture crashing, "stop hitting me", kids crying, etc but no answer to knocking or someone out of breath cracking the door and saying "everything's fine officer" so I leave without entering house.

One hour later the homicide victim daughter calls 911 because Mommy isn't waking up.

Then I am fired and probably charged and sued.

But, on the bright side I respected the offenders right against illegal search


Wagonman I hear ya Bro. and I understand (or at least am beginning to) both sides, I respect the fact that there are going to be exigent circumstances, and you gotta do yer job, but in THIS case so many things just went so wrong. I see a slippery slope that could get "messy" when things like this happen, how does one prepare for such an event?

As this comes to light more I may see that I am wrong, but this event, I see these guys as innocent bystanders or:

Damned if you do and damned if you dont

And no matter what, beat up by a lawyer




Yup.

[LaBulldog]

The police made a mistake and they compounded it by their actions.

If an arrest is unlawful, then the charge of resisting arrest has no merit and is therefore invalid.

[tiberius10721]

I agree police made a mistake and do not want to take responsibilty for their actions. Happens all the time.This is a simple case of officials hiding behind rules and regulations when they do the wrong thing. I guess to serve and protect has no meaning anymore.

[OuTcAsT]

police made a mistake

This may be true, but has yet to be determined.

Please Guys, this has been a good thread and a useful learning experience thus far, Us Joe citizens have been able to keep a civil discourse with some of our fine LE members and Legal Eagles, please read my initial post.

Not accusing, just want to be clear that this thread is NOT going to be about bashing police.

Thank You !

We now return you to the thread already in progress:)

[Kmar40]

and they way it was presented to me, according to federal law, it is a citizens right to resist unlawful arrest.That's not federal law nor is it the rule for the majority of states. I think you may have misunderstood your professor (or have a bad professor).

[BillCA]

That's not federal law nor is it the rule for the majority of states. I think you may have misunderstood your professor (or have a bad professor).

That'd be an interesting research project. It used to be the majority of the states had a statute indicating that a citizen not only had a right to resist an unlawful arrest, but a duty to do so. Apparently many of those laws have gone by the wayside. That used to be the law in Texas (pre-1959) but it is no longer the case.

In some states, even if the officer is way out of line in arresting you, "resisting arrest" is still a crime because some states no longer recognize a right or duty to resist unlawful actions by police.

Note: fortunately such things are generally uncommon WRT police deliberately and maliciously arresting people without any cause.

[Wagonman]

It is my understanding that you don't have the right to resist arrest except in some very very improbable circumstances.

However, as long as HC is in effect there is no real or should I say practical reason to resist arrest.

If you resist arrest I guarantee you will be visiting at least an emergency room.

If you don't resist arrest I guarantee you will earn at least $30,000 a hour for your false arrest incarceration. YMMV

[Dust Monkey]

Why is the cop in question only facing/on suspension? Where a the assault, wrongful detention, brandishing a firearm and so on?

Did the homeowner handle is bad, I don't know. Maybe he didn't know they were cops until he opened the door. What I don't get is the home owner MAY have made a err in judgement. The cops DID err. And only the homeowner is facing criminal charges. That's not right.

[Cerick]

It wasn't the policepersons fault that the address was wrong. Therefore I believe they had the right to be on the property and knock on the door. Even though it wasnt the right house the MP pointed a gun at the police, which can never be justified. I would think somone returning from iraq that had been in the military would have enough common sense not to point a gun at the police. I know they supposedly didnt announce themselves but at least after one saw who was at the door, they would stop resisting, and waving a gun around.

You do have a right to not talk to a police officer to an extent (miranda right) and you can also not stop for a officer under one circumstance. That being if a LEO wants to talk to you to question you about somthing for no reason and he doesn't have the right to, you can keep walking and keep your mouth shut. If you, lets say, fit the description of a robber or criminal of some type after a crime was commited and they want to talk to you, you have to stop. Really because the individual really has no way of knowing why the LEO wants to talk to you, without talking to them, your always better off stoping and asking why. If they want to ask you some questions about anything that may invlove you possibly incriminating yourself, they need to read you your miranda rights, regardless of weather or not they have arrested you. They can ask you your name and basic questions about who you are without your miranda rights being read though. I am a student pursuing a CJ degree so bear with me if not everything I say is spot on, I'm still learning. :o

If somone bangs on my door at 3am unannounced, I probably will have a gun nearby. If I see its the police, I damn sure wont be pointing a gun at them. Common sense.

[OuTcAsT]

the MP pointed a gun at the police, which can never be justified

OK Bear with me here, the video attached to my other post only shows a brief clip of what the homeowner says happened, the longer version which aired in it's entirety showed that the H.O. came to the door and opened it with his weapon at "low ready" once he saw it was LE he backed into the doorway, still not pointing AT anyone, and told the officers to back off, as he had no reason to know why they were there. it escalated from there. once he put down the weapon he was given the "treatment" IE:

If you resist arrest I guarantee you will be visiting at least an emergency room.



I think he got it ;)

IF his story is to be believed, he did not point a gun at anyone, unfortunately that will be up to a judge to decide. I still think he was within his rights and will be aquitted, but that is MHO.

[Dust Monkey]

I guess ignorance of the law only works one way. So what, the police "thought that they were at the right place". They still, IMO, were in the wrong. Why do some cops get to walk free, continued to get paid for actions that would land a citizen in jail.

FWIW. I am a former MP. And as such, the actions of these officers, if accurate, are criminal. Even if the cops don't get charged, they need to be fired and to never be hired as an LEO again. They don't have the temperment.

[ilbob]

LE at its most basic is about government using brute force to enforce its edicts.

Its not surprising that despite a few safeguards in the system, sometimes things happen that should not. Human nature beings being what they are, its rare they will just admit to a screwup of this magnitude. Once the decision is made that they are not going to admit to a screwup, they will do what they have to to protect themselves from the consequences of their own mistakes or misconduct. At that point they care nothing about you, your rights, what is right, or anything else. Just human nature at work.

The system almost always protects its own, so don't expect a whole lot of help there either. Some will say that you can sue after the fact, but that is mostly a futile exercise.

The only thing that will save these citizens from the misconduct of the officers involved is the video. Without it, they would be charged, convicted, and sentenced, even though there was no actual credible evidence that they committed a crime, only the say so of the officers involved, who it appears were actually the ones in the wrong.

These kind of incidents are hopefully not real common. And the increasingly common presence of video is going to make these incidents stand out. One has to wonder how many people were unfairly charged before video was common. And even today, video is present at only a tiny fraction of citizen-police encounters. one has to wonder just how common this kind of thing is.

I guess ignorance of the law only works one way. So what, the police "thought that they were at the right place". They still, IMO, were in the wrong. Why do some cops get to walk free, continued to get paid for actions that would land a citizen in jail. Thats just the way the system is. It sucks but its not real likely to change any.

Realistically, how would you improve it any?

[Dust Monkey]

ilbob. The answer is so multi faceted. I agree with most of what you said and have some ideas on how to change things. Non of my which will make a dent in the problem unless the public gets mad (I don't mean violence) I mean outraged enough to demand a change. Right now, no one really cares until it happens to them.

[Wagonman]

You can't "fix" what's not broken. There is not an epidemic of these incidents. Excrement happens. Comply on scene. Litigate later. Problem solved. Unless, you WANT to be an aggrieved party.

[OuTcAsT]

Its not surprising that despite a few safeguards in the system, sometimes things happen that should not. Human nature beings being what they are, its rare they will just admit to a screwup of this magnitude. Once the decision is made that they are not going to admit to a screwup, they will do what they have to to protect themselves from the consequences of their own mistakes or misconduct. At that point they care nothing about you, your rights, what is right, or anything else. Just human nature at work.




While this may be true in a small amount, I don't think it's fair to paint with such a broad brush. LEOs are, for the most part, good guys doing a tough job, and just want to get home safe.

This case will play out, and we will see how the system works.

Unless the bloviation continues and this thread gets locked, I will continue to watch this with interest, and post updates as they become available.

[MrNiceGuy]

Maybe I've missed where someone was concerned about who actually made the phone call and what happened to them?

The police managed to go to the wrong residence at 3am, get a reaction out of the occupants, and neglect their duties to respond to the correct address.

I'm sure the police could go door to door almost anywhere at 3am and get someone to respond in a defensive manner, but i'd hardly call that a good bust...

The police were the cause of the "problem"
without their incompetence, the officers would have never even met these people

[OuTcAsT]

Maybe I've missed where someone was concerned about who actually made the phone call and what happened to them?


The call was a prank, made by some college kids ( This complex is right next to a state university ) Then the address was botched by the dispatcher, and finally wound up getting two guys in trouble for just being at home asleep.


:barf:

[MrNiceGuy]

I must have missed that
I wonder how long it took from the conclusion of these events until they checked the correct address and discovered it was a prank.

[Dust Monkey]

"Comply on scene". So at 3AM, I am asleep. Loud banging on my apartment door. Someone yells police. I can't tell if they are real officers or not. I have no need for the police, I didn't call them. My rights are already violated. I either open the door (yes a gun would be in my hand) or call the PD to confirm ( if the cops have the patience to wait and allow me to do that.) Once confirmed. I open the door, get questioned. If I refuse to answer or talk. Then the spidey sense of the officers start to formulate a way to legally enter. Plain view comes into play (say I left a gun mag on the coffee table). Now police can enter and ferret out a reason to search my house. And all because they are at the wrong address. And you expect me to file it under stuff happens. Sorry. The err of caution should always go to the citizens rights. If I research hard, I can prove this wrong address crap happens way to often. Sorry. I understand mistakes happen. Part of that is paying for the mistake.

[OuTcAsT]

I wonder how long it took from the conclusion of these events until they checked the correct address and discovered it was a prank.
Today 06:49 PM



DING! DING! DING! You have just asked what may end up as the $2Million (minus legal fees) dollar question:D

[Kmar40]

That'd be an interesting research project. It used to be the majority of the states had a statute indicating that a citizen not only had a right to resist an unlawful arrest, but a duty to do so. Bill, I don't know what you are remembering. At common law that isn't the case. The ability to resist an arrest is a fairly recent creature and many states only allow the ability to resist unlawful force (ie the cop is illegally beating you or executing you) not just an arrest that someone deems unlawful. There is an ALR on the subject. I used it in part while doing the research about 7 years ago.

[Kmar40]

"Comply on scene". So at 3AM, I am asleep. Loud banging on my apartment door. Someone yells police. I can't tell if they are real officers or not. I have no need for the police, I didn't call them. My rights are already violated.Just wondering, what right would that be?

Do you believe knocking on your door is an illegal search or seizure?

[Kmar40]

The call was a prank, made by some college kids ( This complex is right next to a state university ) Then the address was botched by the dispatcher, and finally wound up getting two guys in trouble for just being at home asleep.Uh, no. Brandishing a firearm at police officers got two guys in trouble. End of story.

[Dust Monkey]

My right the be left alone,'to continue sleeping undisturbed. That right.

If the cops had gone to the CORRECT ADDRESS there would not have been a reason for the citizen to answer his door at 3AM with a gun in his hand for his protection (brandishing as you call it).

Either way the catalyst that set this entire Charlie Foxtrot in motion was cops at the wrong address.

Is is so abnormal for a person to answer his door at 3AM, with some form of protection? You would think professional police officers would understand that. Especially after finding out they were at the wrong place, the man with the gun at his side was a fellow LEO. But no. We have to have a couple of unprofessional chest thumpers (the kind that give good cops a bad name) trying to cover their arse and not giving a crap for a fellow police officer and war vet. That's below pathetic.

[Wildalaska]

My right the be left alone,'to continue sleeping undisturbed. That right.

You mean the cops have no right to knock on your door at 3am?

OK, put a sign up:

"Dear PoPo in order to preserve my rights, please do not knock on my door at 3am, even if there is a gas leak in the neighborhood, my garage is on fire, you found my kid drunk on the steps or the zombie hordes are a mere 50 yards away. I am self reliant American Patriot ;)"

Right way:

KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK

*gurgle snuffle grab 45 shuffle*

Who'se there?

Police Sir, open up

*Look through spyhole, see cop*

OK, wait one

*put gun down in a concealed spot, open door*

Whats up guys, yadda yadda yadd.a...OK goodnight sir....


Wrong way

KNOCK KNOCK KNOCK

*gurgle snuffle grab 45 shuffle*

Who'se there?

Police Sir, open up

Screw you, I know my rights....etc

Cuffs

WildcopsareNOTTHEENEMYFORGODSAKEAlaska TM

[OuTcAsT]

"Dear PoPo in order to preserve my rights, please do not knock on my door at 3am, even if there is a gas leak in the neighborhood, my garage is on fire, you found my kid drunk on the steps or the zombie hordes are a mere 50 yards away. I am self reliant American Patriot "



*LOL Giggle snerk*:D

[Dust Monkey]

That is a bunch of tripe and you know it. I and everyone else has a right to be left alone. Drunk kid, gas leak are legal reasons to me on someone property. That was not the case here. Yes the dispatch sent them to tie wrong place or the cops got confused. ONCE it was determined thatntjey were at the wrong address, all should have done an about face (unless a crime or evidence of a crime was in plain view).

You are just trying to stir the pot here. You and everyone else on this board know what I was saying. If you believe that post off yours, well I don't know what to think.

Pesonally, if I get a knock at 3AM and it's the cops, I will comply only as much as I have to, if it's the wrong address, you betcha it violates my rights, maybe not in your view, but it does in mine.

FWIW, the following is opinion only from an old school peace officer.
According to the info we have, if accurate, here is what should have happened, what I would have done:

Arrive at scene that desk sgt called in. Knock on door announce that I was a police officer and needed to speak with the head of the house. When the door opened and I saw a man with a firearm at his side, I would have drawn and instructed the man to place the firearm down and step back. I would have secured the immediate area, cuffed anyone present and then start questioning. Once I found out that it was the wrong address, I would have released all persons and apologized for the major screw up. NOT arrest someone on a chickencrap charge to cover up a mistake

[Wildalaska]

WA. That is a bunch of tripe and you known...You and everyone else on this board know what I was saying.

Really...I think your post was clear. You have the right not to be disturbed by the cops at 3am. Are you now saying that there are legitmate reasons for the PoPo to come calling in the middle of the night? If so, see rule 2 below

According to the info we have, if accurate, here is what should have happened, what I would have done:

Monday morning quarterbacking

Rule 1Hear knock at the door at 3am, OK to grab gun

I Rule2 f you see cops at the door, put the gun down.

WildhowhardisthatandmayisuggestasmalltablewithadrawerneedthefrontdoorAlaska TM

[Dust Monkey]

Your right and wrong. How do you know that the folks at your door are cops? In an apartment complex you might not be able to see a squad car. I have my old military badge, it's pretty easy to impersonate a cop. Rember the teen in chicago? My point is, and always has, is yes, there are legal reasons for cops to be on your property. No question. But once said cops find out they are at the wrong place, certain things should kick in and happen. In this incident that did not happen.

Dont twist my words and try to paint me as a cop hater or thinking cops are the enemy. I support cops, I just demand that cops take responsibility for the mistakes they make. Just like everyone else has to.

[Wagonman]

I totally disagree----- your rights have not been violated by the Cop's temerity to knock on your door in error while investigating a crime. All this about face nonsense is silly and symptomatic of an attitude of hostility toward police. I don't understand your viewpoint at all. You are bleeding before you are shot. Wild and I have given you a real world view of a situation and you continue to ignore and alter our observations.

Nobody is advocating Gestapo activities by Police. But, for goodness sake stipulate the Police are allowed to constitutionally knock on your door.

[Dust Monkey]

I believe I did. Post #69

No claiming Gestapo tactics. Just cops in this incident scewing the pooch and trying to save face by charging and ruining a young mans military service


But hey. It's ok. Don't mind me or my opinion. Since it gets in the way of your view.

[Wagonman]

What opinion are you refering to?

AGAIN, THERE IS NOTHING TO BE GAINED BY FIGHTING WITH THE POLICE ON THE SCENE! COMPLY, AND CONTACT YOUR ATTORNEY AND HE WILL DETERMINE YOUR DAMAGES.

If this guy had complied without the attitude this mountain would be the molehill it should be.

Comply on scene". So at 3AM, I am asleep. Loud banging on my apartment door. Someone yells police. I can't tell if they are real officers or not. I have no need for the police, I didn't call them. My rights are already violated. I either open the door (yes a gun would be in my hand) or call the PD to confirm ( if the cops have the patience to wait and allow me to do that.) Once confirmed. I open the door, get questioned. If I refuse to answer or talk. Then the spidey sense of the officers start to formulate a way to legally enter. Plain view comes into play (say I left a gun mag on the coffee table). Now police can enter and ferret out a reason to search my house. And all because they are at the wrong address. And you expect me to file it under stuff happens. Sorry. The err of caution should always go to the citizens rights. If I research hard, I can prove this wrong address crap happens way to often. Sorry. I understand mistakes happen. Part of that is paying for the mistake

There is always the not refusing to talk to the Police for a couple minutes and the Police realizing their error and saying "Sorry for the intrusion have a good evening" play.



Once I found out that it was the wrong address, I would have released all persons and apologized for the major screw up. NOT arrest someone on a chickencrap charge to cover up a mistake


Where is the major screwup. That is the problem with your view.

They knocked on the wrong door, so what?

If the offender hadn't escalated the situation it would have been a minor annoyance.

[ilbob]

Plain view comes into play (say I left a gun mag on the coffee table).
The coffee table is in plain view too. Since neither is generally illegal to possess, absent some other circumstance, the presence of either is not grounds for any kind of an involuntary entry or search by police.

Personally I think it was dumb to open the door at all, gun or not. I am not opening my door at 3 am for anyone unless I called for someone to come, or can otherwise verify just who they are.

[ilbob]

I totally disagree----- your rights have not been violated by the Cop's temerity to knock on your door in error while investigating a crime. What crime was committed? As best I can tell the only crime in this incident prior to the cops knocking on the door was a false 911 call.

Everything that happened after that point was a series of mistakes that ended up with the people who made the worst mistakes arresting the people who made very minor mistakes.

BTW, just how does one get charged with public intoxication when you are in your own domicile?

[ilbob]

Its not surprising that despite a few safeguards in the system, sometimes things happen that should not. Human nature beings being what they are, its rare they will just admit to a screwup of this magnitude. Once the decision is made that they are not going to admit to a screwup, they will do what they have to to protect themselves from the consequences of their own mistakes or misconduct. At that point they care nothing about you, your rights, what is right, or anything else. Just human nature at work.



While this may be true in a small amount, I don't think it's fair to paint with such a broad brush. LEOs are, for the most part, good guys doing a tough job, and just want to get home safe.
I am not sure what broad brush you are talking about. Most times cops are indeed the good guys. Now and then they screw up. Sometimes when they screw up they don't want to take the heat for it. Human nature taking over.

The majority of the time if they just said 'sorry, we made a mistake", it would be over and done with. It always seems like it is when they screw up and then try to blame it on someone else that it blows up into a mess like this.

[OuTcAsT]

Personally I think it was dumb to open the door at all, gun or not. I am not opening my door at 3 am for anyone unless I called for someone to come, or can otherwise verify just who they are.


And this is the core issue, and the reason I started this thread.

the offender Otherwise known as the homeowner, was awakened by a knock at the door at 0300, grabbed his weapon and went to the door to see what the problem was, when he opened the door to verify that it was indeed the police, he suddenly became...

the offender

I dont think the question is what law he "offended" as much as whom he "offended".

Dash cam video would seem to indicate that there were no " Sparlky blue lights" and only a verbal assertion that it was the police after he asked who was there. Video also shows that he opened the door cautiously, with his gun at "low ready". Once he saw it was the police he asked them to step back and inquired as to what they wanted. This act is apparently what made him...

the offender

I am as uncomfortable as anyone about this fact as I still do not see why this made a man a criminal, but hopefully as we continue to watch this and discuss it we will all learn something.

[Wagonman]

What crime was committed? As best I can tell the only crime in this incident prior to the cops knocking on the door was a false 911 call

You know you are right, these guys just weren't at the academy the day we were issued crystal balls. :rolleyes:

Once he saw it was the police he asked them to step back and inquired as to what they wanted. This act is apparently what made him...


Why would you ask uniformed Police Officers who are investigating a crime to step back? That would be highly suspicious and the first step on the road to being an offender for acting like an offender.

Plus, just in the interest of philosophical karma. I have always stipulated that there is enough blame to go around on this PARTICULAR incident. My observations are made on a general scenario and MY reactions as a Police Officer

[OuTcAsT]

You know you are right, these guys just weren't at the academy the day we were issued crystal balls.

Crystal? I KNEW you guys were issued a set, just didn't know they were crystal;)

[TEDDY]

whell I got this far and I see some interesting things.the leo story was false in content.the accused did not point a gun at them,per the police video.never did find if any one investigated the call or if any one who called was arrested.as a prank call is a law violation.and as soon as the accused was disarmed the leos attacked them.In Boston theis kind of thing ended with at least 2 inocent people killed and the city paid millions to survivers.of course it was not advertised about the settlement and one was a minister.
:rolleyes: :eek::D

[OuTcAsT]

Sorry, just saw this one...

Uh, no. Brandishing a firearm at police officers got two guys in trouble. End of story.

Really? And would counsel please elaborate on what is considered "Brandishing" under TCA ?


If you mean holding a firearm, inside your own residence, in a controlled and safe manner then show me where that is illegal.

[shortwave]

OuTcAsT, This has been a great thread. Kudo`s to you and everyone for the way its been handled. Been awhile since I tuned in and posted. Many new facts have come out(as always) from time thread was started. Doesn`t appear as though Chilton pointed gun AT officers and IF thats the case, the Chiltons have just hit the lottery the hard way. Big difference in having gun in-hand when answering door(esp. @0300) than opening door with gun pointed at person knocking. With the more innovative tactics used today by the scum of the earth (including posing as LEO,it happens more than some may think) for their assault`s against society, it makes people more edgy when having to deal with LEO unless you physically see them( Leo) climb out of a cruiser. Its a shame its that way today but thats reality. I`m not opening my door in the middle of the night to apparent LEO unless I see cruiser or have otherwise confirmed(called dispatch) that those standing on other side of door are LEO. If door is breached before confirmation the situation will be handled as though intruder is a bad guy meaning to do me/family harm regardless of what kind of uniform he/she is wearing. That said, once confirmation is made and door knockers are LEO there`s no need for me to open door with a gun period. Thats just simple respect for LE thats got a job to do. Been my experience that most LEO`s do a good job and are very frustrated by the very few 'bad apples'(every job has them) that pulls bonehead stunts and makes their(good cops) jobs alot harder. The 'bad apples' cost you and I thous. of $`s in tax payers money when justifiable lawsuits are filed and awarded. Too, the respect the public has for LE is sometimes damaged beyond repair. Lowering the qualification standards for a LE job for any reason, its been done in the past for minority hiring, is IMO a cancer in LE. With current facts coming out of this case, I foresee a big payout for the taxpayers and a big hit in the LE respect debt.

[OuTcAsT]

Why would you ask uniformed Police Officers who are investigating a crime to step back? That would be highly suspicious and the first step on the road to being an offender for acting like an offender.



Wagonman I am going to interject a small bit of speculation just based on the facts as they have been reported, my knowledge of the neighborhood, and the limited knowledge I have of LE procedures. Bear with me but;

When you guys walk up to a door in a poorly lit area (these apartments entrances are mostly quite dark) and it appears that there were at least 3 officers, would you not possibly be shining your maglights, streamlights, etc. at the door to be certain you saw even the most slight details? I think I would.

I will assume that at least one of the officers would/could have done so.
I think it Might be possible that one of the cars might have had alley/spot lights pointed at the area, but judging from the small clip of video I did not see strobes or beacons in operation. and most LE and fire/rescue in our area, don't use sirens at 0300 unless absolutely necessary. with this in mind, I will also speculate that if I open that door in a dark room and look out, all I will see will be figures with lights pointed at me and little else.

Next, I am gonna speculate on "state of mind". This young man, a former MP, was just back from the sandbox, I can only imagine that his "spidey sense" is just as acute if not moreso, as any street copper, and certainly more than the average Joe. I will admit that I have no idea what procedures the active duty MP's use, but I will speculate that possibly when encountered by such a scenario his first command might be "Step Back" so that he can evaluate the possible threat before taking further action. ( mind you from a dead sleep only seconds before) I do not think any of this is beyond the realm of possibility, and likely was the way it played out. He wanted to ascertain who was in his yard, and why they were there before securing his pistol from "low ready".

Is this really that hard to imagine that almost anyone might do the same? And would that be unreasonable? I somehow do not think so. And once he secured the weapon, or disarmed completely, could this not have been sorted out by a bit of level headed conversation rather than charge a man for assault with a weapon for merely securing his own perimeter.


I have always stipulated that there is enough blame to go around on this PARTICULAR incident

That may be true, and I will not totally disagree at this point in the game, but I am leaning toward the opinion that this MP might not have acted as irrationally or hell, even at all, had this been handled a bit more professionally. And his actions look less like those of an "offender" and more like an MP.
I think this mans training had a lot to do with the way he approached this situation. I am pretty sure these guys do not simply react the way an average Joe would. I will also posit that your training might lead you to react similarly if you were confronted with a similar scenario at, say a hotel room outside of your jurisdiction?

[OuTcAsT]

OuTcAsT, This has been a great thread. Kudo`s to you and everyone for the way its been handled.

Thanks, Shortwave

I am anxious to see how this plays out, but so far it has made for some very good and educational discussion. I think there is room on both sides to learn a bit about this kind of situation, and I suspect you are right. As gun sales soar, and peoples reactions change, the possibility exists that the dynamic of an officer simply going to a door may need to change in order to keep everyone safe.

I can only hope that dynamic does not change for the worse.

the respect the public has for LE is sometimes damaged beyond repair.

Sadly, in the city where this incident took place it is at an all-time low. As recently as last month a LT. with the same Dept. was charged with vehicular homicide and evidence tampering for hitting and killing a very young girl while intoxicated, and other officers were charged for looking the other way while he hid the bottle. Most LEOs Are good guys, doing a job I wouldn't want, and just trying to make a difference and a living, I respect that. It's a shme that some of their own make that harder for them to do.

And yes, thanks to all who have participated thus far, it is a great tool.

[Wagonman]

I have to second or thirdthe admiration for the way this thread has played out.

More L8r gotta go to work and force my way into homes uninvited ;):D

[shortwave]

Wagonman, thanks for the job you do. Make sure you turn your disco lights on:p:D.

[ilbob]

One of the things average law abiding people forget is that cops have to deal with scum of the earth on a regular basis. I suspect they lose perspective sometimes and start to think the whole world is that way because they see so much of it.

Add to that the unconscionable use of traffic and other citations as a major revenue stream by most levels of government and you have LACs who are already less then thrilled with cops and cops who may be less then thrilled with anyone who is not a cop. But them together and you are bound to have a few sparks now and then.

It does not help any that many police departments and police officers seem to feel any amount of force they use to enforce "compliance" is acceptable, while LACs feel like they should just be left alone.

There is little chance of the system fairly dealing with a LAC who is mistreated by police. Many police departments make it very difficult or even impossible to file a complaint against an officer, and frequently threaten those who try to file complaints with criminal prosecution. And no one seriously believes any government agency will fairly investigate a complaint against one of its employees from an outsider. The civil courts are not an answer either. The cost of litigating makes it tough to sue for anything other than the most serious and slam dunk of incidents.

[Dust Monkey]

Great postb ilbob. You hit the bullseye with that one. From what I have read on this incident, the more I am convinced that the officers involved used very bad judgement once they found out it was the wrong address.

[OuTcAsT]

More L8r gotta go to work and force my way into homes uninvited


Be Safe.

[armsmaster270]

As a 20 year Police Officer and a 16 year Army M.P. both sides screwed the pooch. The Police had a duty to investigate on the face of the 911 call. The M.P. was protecting his property at an early hour. However as pointed out previously there were other ways to handle it other than openining your door with gun in hand. First acertain who is there till you feel safe then respond in the apropriate manner. The police got their pants in a bunch because the residents were not following their script and got carried away. did they confirm the call prior to the door incident? 911 calls show and record the phone # called, from when the dispatcher picks up did they recall the # or find out who made the call and prosecute. Did the Police do B.A.'s on the father son as this is a large part of their case. If they didn't obtain B.A.'s I would be suspicious of the charges it's an old trick to charge drunk in public. It's also been used for good such as down & outers that have nowhere to go in freezing weather, book them as drunk release in the morning no court. The whole situation need's to be looked at closer.

[gretske]

The police have the right to enter a residence only if (a) they have a reasonable belief that a felony is in progress, (b) the homeowner invites them in, or (c) they have a warrant. OK, (b) and (c) are obviously not in play here, so the question is, did they have a "reasonable" belief that a felony was in progress?

Well, the onus is on them to be sure. When the homeowner ordered them to leave, not knowing for sure if they were police officers, and there was no on-site indication of a felony in progress, the LEOs had a responsibility to make sure that they had sufficient cause to enter, uninvited and without a warrant. At this point, they should have contacted dispatch and verified the address. Had they taken this simple step, all of this could have been avoided.

[shortwave]

both sides screwed the pooch. +10. If things are as they seem with no further details, the Chiltons are paying now and as Wagonman posted earlier, collecting later.

[ilbob]

The police have the right to enter a residence only if (a) they have a reasonable belief that a felony is in progress, (b) the homeowner invites them in, or (c) they have a warrant. OK, (b) and (c) are obviously not in play here, so the question is, did they have a "reasonable" belief that a felony was in progress?
I don't know about your state but I am pretty sure in my state I would change the word felony to crime. There are also what are called exigent circumstances that would permit them to legally enter. For instance your home is on fire.

I would also point out that police officers have no rights beyond what all citizens have. They are granted certain powers, but they are not universal, thus cannot correctly be called rights.

Another issue that is rarely even considered is that police departments have created procedures and policies they expect their police officers to follow. By and the large the courts just accept that if the cops follow the police department rules, they are free and clear. Since these policies and procedures are almost always a closely guarded secret, it is virtually impossible for citizens to have even a clue as to what is expected of them in an encounter.

When an incident occurs, you hear the police spokesman saying "they followed procedure". The thing is, there is no way for the average citizen to know what those procedures are so there is no way for them to know just what is expected of them in an encounter.

[OuTcAsT]

When an incident occurs, you hear the police spokesman saying "they followed procedure". The thing is, there is no way for the average citizen to know what those procedures are so there is no way for them to know just what is expected of them in an encounter.
Yesterday 08:41 PM


This is an excellent point, since "Procedure" may or may not follow the letter of the law, I am sure they try to stay within the "Spirit" of the law, but at what expense.

[gretske]

I believe you are right, although I am not sure about the "crime" vs. "felony."I think the standard is fairly high in most states, and a misdemeanor may not make the grade. I am pretty certain that a suspicion that someone may have removed a "Do Not Remove" tag from a piece of furniture would be enough for the cops to knock down a door at 3 AM.

As to "right" vs. "power," this is a technical legal point beyond my understanding, but it is unreasonable to me that the LEOs could violate someones "castle doctrine" rights (if they exist there) based on a phone call and a bad address, then arrest them for resisting a false arrest.

If my door is knocked upon at 3 AM, you better believe that I am not opening it, and I will be prepared to defend myself. A call from the cops to the 911 CDC, or from the CDC to the residence would have been a much more prudent solution than insisting on forcible entry.

[guns and more]

OK...IMHO you are doing well, but you are making a critical mistake in analysis at this stage of the game...

Thats is...you are focusing on each individual element of the incident instead of the totality of the circumstances....

Any individual element of any factual scenario can be attacked, twisted, digested, run up the flagpole and chopped down, but does that change the big picture?

How about this for critical thinking?
You have no more information than I do.
You're stating your opinion as if you have this case wrapped up.
You do not.
(half of the lawyers in court lose.)

[ilbob]

If my door is knocked upon at 3 AM, you better believe that I am not opening it, and I will be prepared to defend myself. A call from the cops to the 911 CDC, or from the CDC to the residence would have been a much more prudent solution than insisting on forcible entry.
I agree on not opening the door until you are sure who or what is there.

I don't believe there was a forcible entry in this case.

The average LAC does not expect a knock on their door at 3 am from the cops, so it is natural to assume that it is not the cops, given that criminals claim to be cops on a regular basis as a way of gaining entry.

The thing is if the cops were at the wrong address, chances are the 911 center might not realize where they actually are, and give the HO bad information. My guess is that the policy of most 911 centers is to give out no information at all in such cases.

I would also guess that most 911 centers are not notified in advance of any midnight calls that are scheduled. So even if you called, they probably would not know about a warrant being served, and if they knew, probably are not going to tell you.

Maybe there are some 911 operators who can comment with more authroity on my guesses.

[OuTcAsT]

The thing is if the cops were at the wrong address, chances are the 911 center might not realize where they actually are

In this csae that would have been correct, the 911 call came from a different number, had he called to see if, or why the PD was outside, she ( the 911 operator ) would not have had a clue what the guy was talking about.

I suspect she did not have a clue anyways. She is on suspension for this little incident.

[Wagonman]

LAC?


There is no set procedure for citizens dealing with the Police.

Just in the words of Jerry Maguire "help us Help you"

I understand the frustration felt in getting citations you don't agree with, getting stopped, having Police show up unannounced and lacking an invite.

That said, just cooperate on scene and save the beefing for later. Because,I guarantee you will lose on scene and the more vehemently you protest and complain on scene the less credible and successful your complaint will be later.

Remember, its nothing personal for the average Cop, just business.

I have bent over backwards for "badguys" after the fact and followed the law to the letter for "citizens" after the fact.

Why, because the BG acted like a gentleman and the "citizen" was a huge PITA.

[gretske]

I would also guess that most 911 centers are not notified in advance of any midnight calls that are scheduled. So even if you called, they probably would not know about a warrant being served, and if they knew, probably are not going to tell you.
Remember, this was a dispatch based on a call to 911, not a warrant being served, so the 911 dispatch center would have known.
That said, just cooperate on scene and save the beefing for later.
You are missing the point. The citizen did not know whether the people on the other side of the door were really LEOs or not. What if it was bad guys pretending to be cops? Cooperate, as you suggest, and you could be dead. It's not a uniformed cop approaching you on a street corner, it is a disembodied voice on the other side of a closed door at 3 AM. (Land Shark? Candygram?)


I would have never opened the door until I was sure they were LEOs. And, opening the door to see their ID is NOT an option in a case like this; if they are bad guys, they will just push the door open, and I am a dead nice guy. I would probably have called 911 to verify that they were cops before opening the door, if I could not get a visual ID for myself. I would NEVER, EVER in a million years, open the door until I was sure beyond any doubt that the voices on the other side were LEO. I don't think there is anything the voice on the other side of the door could say that would convince me.

While I agree that the citizen did not act in a completely appropriate manner according to the report, you have to admit that having your door pounded on at 3 AM is an extraordinary, and frightening, experience. The LEOs have a much higher standard than a citizen in a case like this. Citizens do not have a responsibility to be "nice" when rousted at 3 AM, but LEOs have a legal obligation to be certain before taking serious action.

There is no set procedure for citizens dealing with the Police.
Sure there is. It is called the Constitution and it sets out exactly what rights citizens have regarding law enforcement.

I predict a big lawsuit!

[Wagonman]

There is no set procedure for citizens dealing with the Police.

Sure there is. It is called the Constitution and it sets out exactly what rights citizens have regarding law enforcement.


You are confusing the Macro with the Micro.

I predict a big lawsuit!

I don't disagree.

[OuTcAsT]

That said, just cooperate on scene and save the beefing for later

I agree 100% however, I don't think this guy had a chance to cooperate,

Just like gretske said:

I would have never opened the door until I was sure they were LEOs. And, opening the door to see their ID is NOT an option in a case like this; if they are bad guys, they will just push the door open, and I am a dead nice guy. I would probably have called 911 to verify that they were cops before opening the door, if I could not get a visual ID for myself. I would NEVER, EVER in a million years, open the door until I was sure beyond any doubt that the voices on the other side were LEO. I don't think there is anything the voice on the other side of the door could say that would convince me.


I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense would argue with that logic. Also, this was a factor:


Quote:
The thing is if the cops were at the wrong address, chances are the 911 center might not realize where they actually are

In this csae that would have been correct, the 911 call came from a different number, had he called to see if, or why the PD was outside, she ( the 911 operator ) would not have had a clue what the guy was talking about.

I suspect she did not have a clue anyways. She is on suspension for this little incident.
Yesterday 07:27 PM


And, I think this :

Quote:
Why would you ask uniformed Police Officers who are investigating a crime to step back? That would be highly suspicious and the first step on the road to being an offender for acting like an offender.


Wagonman I am going to interject a small bit of speculation just based on the facts as they have been reported, my knowledge of the neighborhood, and the limited knowledge I have of LE procedures. Bear with me but;

When you guys walk up to a door in a poorly lit area (these apartments entrances are mostly quite dark) and it appears that there were at least 3 officers, would you not possibly be shining your maglights, streamlights, etc. at the door to be certain you saw even the most slight details? I think I would.

I will assume that at least one of the officers would/could have done so.
I think it Might be possible that one of the cars might have had alley/spot lights pointed at the area, but judging from the small clip of video I did not see strobes or beacons in operation. and most LE and fire/rescue in our area, don't use sirens at 0300 unless absolutely necessary. with this in mind, I will also speculate that if I open that door in a dark room and look out, all I will see will be figures with lights pointed at me and little else.

Next, I am gonna speculate on "state of mind". This young man, a former MP, was just back from the sandbox, I can only imagine that his "spidey sense" is just as acute if not moreso, as any street copper, and certainly more than the average Joe. I will admit that I have no idea what procedures the active duty MP's use, but I will speculate that possibly when encountered by such a scenario his first command might be "Step Back" so that he can evaluate the possible threat before taking further action. ( mind you from a dead sleep only seconds before) I do not think any of this is beyond the realm of possibility, and likely was the way it played out. He wanted to ascertain who was in his yard, and why they were there before securing his pistol from "low ready".

Is this really that hard to imagine that almost anyone might do the same? And would that be unreasonable? I somehow do not think so. And once he secured the weapon, or disarmed completely, could this not have been sorted out by a bit of level headed conversation rather than charge a man for assault with a weapon for merely securing his own perimeter.



Quote:
I have always stipulated that there is enough blame to go around on this PARTICULAR incident

That may be true, and I will not totally disagree at this point in the game, but I am leaning toward the opinion that this MP might not have acted as irrationally or hell, even at all, had this been handled a bit more professionally. And his actions look less like those of an "offender" and more like an MP.
I think this mans training had a lot to do with the way he approached this situation. I am pretty sure these guys do not simply react the way an average Joe would. I will also posit that your training might lead you to react similarly if you were confronted with a similar scenario at, say a hotel room outside of your jurisdiction?

I just think this homeovner was acting under his own set of exigent circumstances, and once he saw they were LEO he disarmed himself, was he ****** off? probably, but you or I likely would be too, still not a good reason not to pass GO, and I'll bet he collects his $200.00 and then some. :cool:

[ilbob]

That said, just cooperate on scene and save the beefing for later. Because,I guarantee you will lose on scene and the more vehemently you protest and complain on scene the less credible and successful your complaint will be later.
Chances are you will never get much success in the complaint department either. Police departments are notorious for clearing their officers even when it is quite clear they should be disciplined.

Best bet is to avoid the problem altogether if you can.

DON"T OPEN THE DOOR WITH A GUN IN YOUR HAND, police or not.

If you need the gun, you need to not open the door.

[OuTcAsT]

Chances are you will never get much success in the complaint department either. Police departments are notorious for clearing their officers even when it is quite clear they should be disciplined.


While I am sure there are departments that practice "CYA" here and there, in this particular case one officer and the 911 operator have been suspended. It would appear that the department is beginning to "clean house" to avoid these mistakes, whether the other officers will face the same is yet to be decided.

DON"T OPEN THE DOOR WITH A GUN IN YOUR HAND, police or not.



I do not find that to be tactically sound advice, maybe "Don't open the door with a gun visibly in your hand"


If you need the gun, you need to not open the door.

While this may be mostly true, in this particular set of circumstances I believe this mans training had a lot to do with his approach.

MP just home from the sandbox, and unlike wars past where Grandpa, and Uncle Jim had a little down time and a nice long boat ride to get a chance to "De-Mil" These guys are in a war zone one day and home the next. Some training is kinda hard to just turn off, IMHO. But that is another discussion.

A wise man once told me to look at circumstances as a whole and I see some glitches that contributed to this incident.

[shortwave]

With both Dispatcher and LEO on suspension one would think that LE department is not covering up anything. Clearly dispatcher screwed up and sounds as though(with current facts) so did officer. So did Chilton by opening door with gun in hand not knowing(as he stated) whether real cops stood on the other side or not. Again, after conversation between LEO`s and Chilton through door, if Chilton was suspicious, one call to 911 stating "this is Mr. Chilton @ such and such address, why do you have LEO at my door"? Dispatchers have records of all previously made calls to them as well as addresses. Wouldn`t have taken dispatcher long to figure out that he/she screwed up,called/radio`ed LEO telling them they were at the wrong address and re-dispatched. Instead cops think they`re at right address sent there for a disturbance, not the friendliest conversation through door and when Chilton finally opens door he`s got a gun. Not smart. Cops still thinking they`re at right address immediately go to survival mode. Can`t blame em. IMO, I can`t blame the two officers for anything they did up to the point it was figured out they were at the wrong address. Their re-action to Chiltons actions up to that point are understandable. The treatment including arrest AFTER finding out LE screw up I believe will cost the city dearly. Dispatchers screw up is evident, Chiltons screw up was opening door till 911 call made and LEO`S screw up is arresting them after finding out that dispatcher screwed up. WOW - that was one screwed up and costly night:eek:

[ilbob]

DON"T OPEN THE DOOR WITH A GUN IN YOUR HAND, police or not.


I do not find that to be tactically sound advice, maybe "Don't open the door with a gun visibly in your hand.
A holstered weapon is maybe OK. But you hands need to be visibly empty, or the cops will get really hinky.

I just don't see opening the door makes any sense at all if you think you need a gun in hand to do so.

[ilbob]

While I am sure there are departments that practice "CYA" here and there, in this particular case one officer and the 911 operator have been suspended. It would appear that the department is beginning to "clean house" to avoid these mistakes, whether the other officers will face the same is yet to be decided.
My guess is the video is what made the difference. Its fairly conclusive.

I am a major cynic perhaps, but there seem to be very few if any government agencies that investigate complaints against their employees in an open and reasonable way to the complainer. LE or not.

Incidentally, the criminal charges have not been dropped yet.

[ftd]

This is a very interesting thread. Some thoughts -

Wagonman

Remember, its nothing personal for the average Cop, just business.

I believe you. And you have a really tough job, especially in ANY apprehension situation. It is a tough business and Le's deserve our thanks and respect. You have mine.

I have bent over backwards for "badguys" after the fact and followed the law to the letter for "citizens" after the fact.

Why, because the BG acted like a gentleman and the "citizen" was a huge PITA.

I see that you are also human just like us and that it is not always, "just business". It is also not "business" at all for us civilians, ever, should we be awakened in the middle of the night by pounding on our doors and we know NOTHING of what is going on.

Obvious, to me, those on both sides of the door are tense and even fearful. To say that the police should not be met with threats when they knock on someone's door is, for me, true. It is also true that it is ridiculous to think that someone on the other side who maybe can't identify who you are should just comply with "police orders".

This incident was a mistake. Mistakes shouldn't, but do happen - to and by all of us. During the incident the police did not yet know that a mistake had happened but those on the inside KNEW that something was very mistaken.

So explain, someone, please, why the police and the DA would continue to act badly about this. It makes no sense to this citizen. Is this "just business"?

[Dust Monkey]

So explain, someone, please, why the police and the DA would continue to act badly about this. It makes no sense to this citizen. Is this "just business"?

Its called "we got caught with our pants down, dancing all over it, and someone can prove it, so we make their lives hell".

Thats what is it called.

[Wagonman]

I see that you are also human just like us and that it is not always, "just business". It is also not "business" at all for us civilians, ever, should we be awakened in the middle of the night by pounding on our doors and we know NOTHING of what is going on.



It should always be just business----your level of service is contingent on your attitude

[ilbob]

Its called "we got caught with our pants down, dancing all over it, and someone can prove it, so we make their lives hell".

Thats what is it called.
yep.

sad part is the state can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to convict someone that should never have been charged in the first place. the average citizen cannot afford to defend himself in court against the unlimited resources of the state.

they will probably end up having to take some kind of plea deal solely out of economic necessity. that is often the end result of these kind of cases. the cops will then claim they were vindicated.

I don't pretend to have an answer to these kind of situations other than to avoid them. That is why you should avoid any official encounter with LE at all. You just never know when it is going to go bad, and if it goes bad it is always worse for the LAC then for the government agent.

[gretske]

Let me offer a couple of thoughts. First, if the case has merit, there will probably be attorneys who will prosecute the civil case on contingency. If they do, they will usually also agree to fight the criminal charges. So, the civilians here may get their day in court after all.

Second, the lesson here is a basic one, and this discussion was very valuable for me, and others as well, I suspect. I had never really thought through a situation like this, so I did not have a specific plan for it.

Now, I do.

Assuming a like set of conditions - a knock at the door in the middle of the night, voices claiming to be LEOs - I would first secure my person in a safe place, not near the front door. Armed and prepared for self defense. Second, I would call 911 to report that my "castle" was about to be invaded. If it is LEOs, they can so advise and coordinate the safe opening of the door. If it is BGs pretending to LEOs, then I have set in motion the back up I may need.

I thank all for a good and lively discussion, and hope you found it enlightening as well.

[Bond007]

I realize that I'm late to the party, but still wanted to offer a suggestion.

On two prior occasions a couple of years ago I have had the police arrive at my apartment claiming to be responding to a 911 call. At the time I lived alone and both times was asleep in bed when they knocked on the door.

I could have grabbed a firearm and opened the door, but that seemed like a bad idea. Instead, I called the local police before answering the door (programmed in my cell phone and better luck getting through than 911) and asked if police were in fact dispatched to my apartment. Only after they confirmed yes, did I open the door, unarmed and at a lowered threat level.

If you don't call ahead, and you're not the police, I am calling the police and not opening the door.

[ilbob]

Assuming a like set of conditions - a knock at the door in the middle of the night, voices claiming to be LEOs - I would first secure my person in a safe place, not near the front door. Armed and prepared for self defense. Second, I would call 911 to report that my "castle" was about to be invaded. If it is LEOs, they can so advise and coordinate the safe opening of the door. If it is BGs pretending to LEOs, then I have set in motion the back up I may need.
Just to muddy the water a bit. Suppose the 911 operator says there are no police at your location, because like in this case, they were at the wrong address. So now you know for an absolute fact the guys pounding on your door at 3am claiming to be cops are not in fact cops.

Suppose further that the cops decide to break down your door and you shoot them as they come thru the door.

Guess who is going to jail, and for how long?

[ilbob]

First, if the case has merit, there will probably be attorneys who will prosecute the civil case on contingency. If they do, they will usually also agree to fight the criminal charges. So, the civilians here may get their day in court after all.
It just does not work that way in real life. There are tens of thousands of medical malpractice situations every year that are slam dunk but because there is little financial incentive to sue, no lawyer will take the case on contingency.

Unless there is a racial angle or a death, there is not going to be enough money involved to lure in a decent lawyer.

[Wagonman]

I don't pretend to have an answer to these kind of situations other than to avoid them. That is why you should avoid any official encounter with LE at all. You just never know when it is going to go bad, and if it goes bad it is always worse for the LAC then for the government agent.

I agree. Do not have official involvement with the Police if at all possible.

Having the Police in your day is a HUGE wildcard.

But, do not hesitate to pick up dinner check if you are at same resturant with some underpaid civil servants. :D;)

LAC? Legally Armed Citizen?

Guess who is going to jail, and for how long?

I would guess not the homeowner. In my City you have to inform dispatch if you are serving a search warrant.

Your affirmative defense is calling 911. However, you should be calling from safe room with phoneline open.

[ilbob]

LAC? Legally Armed Citizen?
Law abiding citizen.

[Al Norris]

I may be wrong, but I interpreted LAC as meaning, Law Abiding Citizen.

[gretske]

Suppose the 911 operator says there are no police at your location, because like in this case, they were at the wrong address. So now you know for an absolute fact the guys pounding on your door at 3am claiming to be cops are not in fact cops.
Then, from my safe room, I tell whoever it is that broke down my door that I am armed and will protect myself if they attempt to enter and that I have called 911 and the police are on the way. If they break down the door to the safe room anyway, then the outcome will depend on who is the better shot.

I am not sure how realistic this scenario is. Once you tell the supposed police outside the door that you have called the "real" police, that should cause them to reconsider their plan. Second, that call to 911 should cause a review of what is happening, especially if you tell 911 that the voices are claiming to be the police. If they discover the mistake, they will should tell the police to stand down. The key is to defuse the situation without ending up in a gun fight.

I can tell you this, if I challenged the voices outside and starting getting the kind of profanity on the tape, I would definitely not open the door unless I was assured that they were cops. These guys were very unprofessional, which needlessly escalated the situation.

The alternative is to surrender to an unknown and to take your chances that it really is the police. You might, I wouldn't. By the way, I have a spare cell phone in my safe room. You should, too. And, spare ammo, just it case.

[Erik]

The argument to "just call 911 or the local non-emergency number" ignores the reality that there is no sole clearing-house for confirming law enforcement activity for any given area. Meanwhile, the law enforcement personnel knocking are no less law enforcement personnel and will act accordingly depending on why they are there to begin with.

Be safe, by all means, but be reasonable. Reasonable being a component of safe, after all.

[mrray13]

i, too, am late to the party, but want to offer up a little knowledge.

1)in the state of illinois, you CANNOT legally resist arrest, even if the arrest is false. 720 ilcs 5/7-7, for wagonman

2)The thing is if the cops were at the wrong address, chances are the 911 center might not realize where they actually are

In this case that would have been correct, the 911 call came from a different number, had he called to see if, or why the PD was outside, she ( the 911 operator ) would not have had a clue what the guy was talking about.
i'm sure wagonman will second this..i didn't watch the video so i dunno if the murfreesboro pd did it or not, but..the moment i step out of my squad, i radio dispatch and inform them of the address. if i was dispatched, as they were, i will be repeating that address. if not dispatched, then county now knows where i am at, and that i am no longer in my car. it's all about safety and being able to respond should something bad happens.

3)wagonman has said this before, you don't have to answer the door. i will radio dispatch, ask for a call back, and if one isn't forthcoming and i don't hear what sounds like a crime being commited, i go code and walk away. yes, i cross my fingers and pray i didn't walk away from someone who needed my help, but i have to walk away. if i hear something bad, or believe a crime is being commited and you don't answer, my foot is introduced to the door.


4) as to this case, i believe the police screwed the pooch far more then the Clintons. i believe the younger was in his right, and if the firearm was indeed at low-ready, the cops should've put him on the ground (seems to me they all complied), ran names for warrants, and assuming noone had any, turned everyone loose. that's way simplified, but a general rundown. in this state, however, if they would have refused any at all, resisting becomes a viable charge. all the firearm stuff, well...



that's about all for now. but wagonman said it best i believe...comply today, litigate tomorrow. only makes you look that much better anyway.

[mskdgunman]

The initial report leaves something to be desired in terms of specific details. Were they dispatched to the wrong apartment or just end up there?. If I have questions as to the location, I'll try and have the comm center verify the location via a call back but some times folks don't answer on call back so you're stuck with what you have. I think that if I went to a house, identified myself as a cop (and was in uniform we can assume) and someone comes to the door with a gun in hand, I'm going to be a little tense. We'll address it and work out the details later once the cuffs are on and everyone is safe and disarmed. As it is, I think I'm going to a problem of some kind (since I'm responding to a 9-1-1 call) and to my knowledge, I'm at the right house. Is it against the law to answer the door when the cops knock with a gun in your hand? Probably not but it's also not real bright. If he was a military police officer, he should understand that and understand the mindset of the officers coming to the door. Answering with a gun his hand was just stupid. He should be thankful that nobody got seriously injured and write it off as a learning experience. As for the charges, there is nothing specific in the article which would let me judge if the charges were appropriate or not. If he committed an aggravated assault with firearm, then charge him and let the courts work it out. As a decorated military police officer, he above anyone, should know better.

[gretske]

We are dealing with hypotheticals here, but for background, the 911 dispatcher did send them to the wrong address. Listen to the tape to hear what happened when they arrived, but suffice it to say, one of the officers was less than professional and has been suspended.

We are also assuming, for sake of argument, that the civilians were not able to get a visual on the people knocking on the door, so they could not confirm that they were LEOs. I agree that opening the door with a gun in hand was not a good idea; I would not open the door under any circumstances unless and until I could confirm who it really was. This is why I said I would call 911 to confirm and/or report a potential intrusion.

I am not a lawyer or a LEO, but just because someone knocking on my door in the middle of the night claims that they are law enforcement does not make it so, and I will not open my door until I know for sure. I doubt a jury would convict me on obstruction charges if I did not have a way of knowing, but if they did, so be it.

The fact is, that had the officers on the scene been more professional and less confrontational, this whole scenario could have been avoided. While I don't condone the actions of the former MP, I think he should be given wide latitude because he was otherwise faultless, and the victim of an error.

[OuTcAsT]

Were they dispatched to the wrong apartment or just end up there?.

They were dispatched to the right apartment number, just the wrong building
IE: Apt.#5 Campus South versus Apt.#5 Campus North.

[gretske]

The apartment number may have been the same, but no matter how you look at it, it was the wrong address.

[OuTcAsT]

The apartment number may have been the same, but no matter how you look at it, it was the wrong address.

Um...Yeah, OK I think that was why I started this thread.;)

Just trying to answer a question.

If he was a military police officer, he should understand that and understand the mindset of the officers coming to the door

I'm sure that if he had any reason to believe that the knock at the door was LE he probably would not have met the coppers with gun in hand...That's the point, he had no reason to expect police as he nor anyone in his home had called them, and they knocked but did not identify themselves as police until he opened the door to see what the hubub was, at that point it was downhill all the way.

[shortwave]

The argument to "just call 911 or the local non emerg. number" ignores the reality that there`s no sole clearing -house for confirming LE activity in any given area. In this particular case Confirmation could have easily been done if Chilton would have called 911: there`s two questionable LEO`s beating on my door at 0300 which i haven`t called. In conversation with LEO through closed door I simply tell them I`m calling 911,ask for their badge numbers(which if they are LEO,they will give). Call dispatcher, give my name and address,tell him/her that two LEO`s are at my door and give badge numbers. Dispatcher knows where those officer`s are supposed to be,will also know from my phone number that I have not previously called so I`m not the address the LEO`S should be at. Que dispatcher that there`s a problem in which dispatcher calls/radio`s two LEO outside my door. Problem solved! P.S. May I suggest for people here to call their local non-emergency LE office and ask them what we should do if our doors are knocked upon and we`re not sure whether person knocking is LEO or not. Bet they tell ya not to open door without calling 911 1st.

[Wagonman]

You will never get in trouble asking for more information.

[OuTcAsT]

Wow, First let me say that this has been a very interesting and educational thread, and one of the few that I have ever seen go for 6 pages while discussing such a violatile topic that did not turn into a genital waving contest, Good Show :) Imagine, a cordial, round table discussion between LEOs, Lawyers, and Law abiding citizens about a situation that could happen to anyone, at any time, and some sage advice on how to proceed when it does, absolutely awesome.

This case will play out in court, and I will start another thread when things start to get resolved.

What I have learned:

1. If police show up at your door un-expectedly (unless they have a warrant to serve) then you do, in a broad sense, have some rights. But in the narrow sense those rights are gonna take a back seat until business at hand is complete.

2. Make every attempt to satisfy yourself that they are indeed LE. Either visually, or by calling 911 before you open the door.

3. Make sure the officers are aware that this is what you intend so that they will understand a slight delay while everything is proven kosher.

4. Do not open the door with a weapon in your hand, or even visible for that matter.

5. Cooperate within your miranda rights as fully as possible.

6. If the situation is a mistake, as was the case here, simply cooperate at the scene, and call your lawyer later.

While I am still uncomfortable with the police having such broad latitude, that's the way it is. The safest thing is to play the game by the rules, and litigate the rest later.

I will ask the Moderators to close this for now, as we have seen all there is to see for the moment, and will update when new evidence comes to light.
Thank you all for a great learning experience.

Dan E. Bruner AKA OuTcAsT


P.S. This might make a good sticky in T&T ?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As you wish as you were the OP. Start a new one with more info.

Glenn