Cop Gets Fired After Apologizing To Army Sergeant

[Music] welcome to audit the audit where we sort out the who and what and the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers the knock and talk doctrine profanity and community caretaking and is brought to us by saira hawkins's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on may 10 2020 the suicide city police department received a call from north bay medical center about an individual who had potentially ingested nail polish remover officers tiffany konoma and cody marler responded to the call and were dispatched to the suicide city california home of military veteran sergeant syrah hawkins hello hey i don't know who that is you know who that is no who's your uh your girlfriend or your baby mama lady right here first of all that's my wife okay okay who are you looking for i want to say can you go with the mother's man what's the problem so we're here on a welfare check we have to hang out why because we received a call from north bay for the incident that occurred earlier what incident i think look look right there who's being investigated if y'all investigate right there nine years u.s army now what's the problem okay what's your first name i don't have to identify myself to you do i am i under investigation you want to tell me what's going on no she can't come out there y'all need to tell me what's going on this is my house they're advising that this is not the right address ma'am what ma'am y'all violating my rights right now actually we're not dude yes you are because you're not telling me you know who that is that hasn't said it listen to me dude we're not violating your rights you are how because which right which civil right are we violating why are you raising we're not violating anything okay so we're we are here on a welfare check i can go inside we are here on a welfare check sergeant hawkins asserts that the police are violating his rights although he does not explain how and the officers argue that they are not violating any rights by standing on his porch the area immediately surrounding an individual's home including the front porch is known as the cartilage and supreme court precedent protects cartilage as part of the home itself for fourth amendment purposes in the 2013 case of florida vs jardines the supreme court noted that quote but when it comes to the fourth amendment the home is first among equals at the amendment's very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion this right would be of little practical value if the state's agents could stand in a home's porch or side garden and trawl for evidence with impunity the right to retreat would be significantly diminished if the police could enter a man's property to observe his repose from just outside the front window nonetheless under the so-called knock and talk doctrine officers generally have the authority to enter a home's cartilage to knock on the door and ask questions without a warrant the court explained in the jardine's case that quote the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry this implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path knock promptly wait briefly to be received and then absent invitation to linger longer leave thus a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock precisely because that is no more than any private citizen might do however this doctrine does not authorize officers to bypass the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment to conduct searches or engage an activity that exceeds the scope of accepted social norms as the court detailed in the jardine's case quote to find a visitor knocking on the door is routine even if sometimes unwelcome to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission would inspire most of us to well call the police the scope of a license is limited not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose applying this standard lower courts have found certain police behaviors to exceed the scope of the implied license to knock at an individual's door without a warrant for instance in the 2022 case of cup versus smith the northern district of california found that an officer exceeded the scope of the implied license to knock when he approached the garage area entered the garage door spoke with the homeowner's worker walked through the carport and took multiple photographs of the garage and surrounding area similarly the florida first district court of appeals held in the 2013 case of pal versus state that an unconstitutional search occurred when police officers stepped off the front step of a mobile home and looked into a window they could not see through from the front step the court explained that quote even when governmental agents are engaging in otherwise lawful knock and talks they can exceed the scope of a reasonable visit to a front door or porch through physical actions that encroach into areas in which the resident has a reasonable expectation of privacy but the decision also noted that quote under certain circumstances implicit permission may exist to look through an uncurtained window while standing on a front porch momentarily to see whether the resident is approaching the door assuming no unreasonable means or devices are used in this situation while a court would almost certainly conclude that the officers did not violate sergeant hawkins's rights by knocking on the door to ask questions it is less clear how a court would view the officers walking over to look in and knock on the front window under the walk and talk doctrine however as we will discuss later in this episode a court would likely determine that this was not a violation of sergeant hawkins's fourth amendment rights under the exigent circumstances doctrine i don't know what that means stop talking let me talk i don't know a child i don't like to i don't like him hey he's raising his voice at me right now or nail polish okay okay so we come here your baby's right there okay i'm gonna talk to you first of all you came to my house and said is that my girlfriend or my baby mama that's my wife that's disrespectful starting off all right sir so that was disrespectful starting off and then he's raising his voice at me okay i understand so now i can raise my voice right no you can eat what's his problem okay okay no i need your badge numbers i'm sorry i'll give you my batch number but so the reason we're here is now you're telling me the reason after you told me to eat it sir so you told me to eat right so you haven't violated any of my rights no the first thing you said to me coming here was is that my baby mom or my girlfriend then he started raising his voice at me from north bay pause i need your name and your badge number officer karma 107. thank you i know your name in your background smaller one or two and she's at my window i told you not to go to my window close the blinds do you have a 14 year old son close the blind hold on sir sir close the blind sir do you have a 14 year old son close the blinds close the blinds i'm not going in the house are you supposed to be ma'am are you children okay okay look okay guy he's asking if my children are okay my family was here all day we had a good day you're here telling me to eat it it is i don't know who the 14 year old is okay nine years in the military okay you told me thank you all right you can get out of here that's what you can do marlar you okay let me explain because we may say can i can i explain to you after officer marlar directs a vulgar insult toward sergeant hawkins sergeant hawkins becomes understandably enraged and begins to direct profanities back at officer marlar while officer marlar's conduct was not criminal his behavior was in clear violation of suicide city police department policies policy 323 which details standards of conduct for officers in the department lists discourteous disrespectful or discriminatory treatment of any member of the public the use of obscene indecent profane or derogatory language while on duty or in uniform and any other conduct which any member knows or reasonably should know is unbecoming a member of this department or tends to reflect unfavorably upon this department or its members as potential causes for disciplinary action it should also be noted that as we have discussed many times on ata sergeant hawkins was well within his rights to express his displeasure with officer marlar's conduct through the use of profanities and insults and as the supreme court explained in the 1987 case of city of houston versus hill quote the first amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers did you go to north bay today what is that get in the house what are y'all talking about nobody knows what y'all are talking about well you're not letting me explain you never explained you started asking questions he said is that my girlfriend about maybe mom okay i apologize for that okay i'm here to clarify so it may have been a miscommunication between north bay and our dispatch so we got a call that we need okay a three-year-old was brought into the hospital because she ingested nail polish remover okay we don't know anything about any of that and that is absolutely fine so this just got a little out of hand but you don't come to somebody's house and say if that's your baby i'm your girlfriend right i completely understand you're supposed to be professional i'm trying my best to be forever and you you're doing fine but that guy i don't know what side of the bed he woke up on put yourself in my shoes two cops knock on your door boom boom boom i'm not having a good time with my wife okay of five years who i have now scared you you probably scared them they don't know officer friendly yet you knocking on my window after officer kanama asks officer marlar to step away she explains to sergeant hawkins that they were sent to his home on a welfare check regarding a potential medical emergency and that they must have been dispatched to the wrong address a welfare check occurs when the police respond to a call or other request to check on an individual's well-being or safety welfare checks are not criminal investigations but they are related to police officers so-called community caretaking function which the supreme court defined in the 1976 case of katie versus dombrowski as police duties that are quote totally divorced from the detection investigation or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute although the katy decision involved a vehicle and did not apply to holmes after it was published many lower courts interpreted the holding as creating a quote unquote community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement that allowed officers to enter homes without a warrant for a non-investigatory purpose such as to prevent a suicide or to conduct a welfare check on an older individual who's been out of contact however the supreme court clarified in the 2021 case of coniglia vs strom that there is no stand-alone community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement for homes and that officers cannot enter a home or the surrounding cartilage while performing a community caretaking function unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies still many warrantless entries that had previously been justified under the community caretaking doctrine could still be justified under the exigent circumstances doctrine which as justice kavanaugh explained in his concurring opinion quote allows officers to enter a home without a warrant in certain situations including to fight a fire and investigate its cause to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence to engage in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon or prevent a suspect's escape to address a threat to the safety of law enforcement officers or the general public to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant who is threatened with serious injury here because the officers were responding to a call regarding a potential medical emergency it is likely that a court would find that the exigent circumstances doctrine applied and that the officers could look in the window or even enter the home if no one answered the door without violating the fourth amendment so y'all want me to like quote what statue you guys are violating i'm not one of those people but i'm pretty sure i can go on google and see we have every right to be here to check on somebody and you have the right to google us and make sure so you have the right to be a check on somebody right yes did i have to come out my door you did not we needed have a good night sir shortly after officer konoma left sergeant hawkins home officer marlar returned knocked on the door and apologized for his prior behavior however sergeant hawkins was not appeased and he posted the footage he recorded of the interaction on his youtube channel in response to public outcry the department issued a public statement on may 13 2020 that read quote over the weekend one of our suicide city police officers was involved in an unfortunate interaction with a resident while responding to a call for service during that incident the officer involved used language that was not appropriate and not within the standards of the suicide city police department the city of soweson city and the swiss and city police department want to assure our residents that this type of behavior is not tolerated by any measure the statement also quoted chief aaron roth as saying quote this is an unfortunate incident that we will use as a learning opportunity to do better as we continue to work with our community to make suicide city a better place for everyone on behalf of the suicide city police department i would like to publicly apologize to the residents involved in this incident and to the entire community as a result of the incident officer marler was released from his position at the department but it's unclear whether he was terminated or if he was allowed to resign overall officer marlar gets an f for making disrespectful assumptions about sergeant hawkins's relationship with his wife using profane and vulgar language towards a citizen and displaying a complete lack of professionalism throughout the encounter while officer marlar did eventually apologize his conduct completely derailed the interaction from the beginning and prevented the mistaken address from being quickly identified instead of working to locate the correct address for the individual who may have ingested nail polish remover the officers were required to spend valuable time resolving sergeant hawkins's well-warranted complaints in situations involving medical emergencies this sort of delay could be fatal and it easily could have been avoided here if officer marlar had simply behaved professionally officer konoma gets a b because although there is certainly room for improvement in the way she and officer marlar initiated this interaction she maintained a professional demeanor throughout the interaction attempted to de-escalate the situation and remained calm while both officer marler and sergeant hawkins lost their tempers that being said it certainly would have been helpful if officer konoma had explained the reason they were knocking as soon as sergeant hawkins opened the door instead of immediately interrogating him which made him defensive from the start i hope that officer konoma learns from this encounter and improves her questioning techniques for future welfare checks and other similar situations sergeant hawkins also gets a b because while his angry response to officer marlar's conduct escalated the situation and delayed the resolution of the interaction his outrage was completely understandable and his expressions of anger were protected by the first amendment as sergeant hawkins pointed out he was not the one wearing a uniform and i cannot fault him for making a stand against rude and insulting conduct from a police officer this interaction illustrates the essential role officers play in setting the tone of an encounter and had officer marlar not made disrespectful statements from the beginning of the interaction it likely would have been resolved quickly and without incident let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to check out my second channel for even more police interaction content [Music] you

Channel: Audit the Audit

Views: 8,685,539

Keywords: amagansett press, first amendment audit, 1st amendment audit, auditing america, news now california, sgv news first, high desert community watch, anselmo morales, photography is not a crime, san joaquin valley transparency, first amendment audit fail, walk of shame, news now houston, police fail, 1st amendment audit fail, public photography, auditor arrested, police brutality, highdesert community watch, pinac news, cops triggered, news now patrick, east hampton

Id: Ij88V88cNDc

Length: 16min 34sec (994 seconds)

Published: Mon Apr 11 2022

Reddit Comments

[u/megabits]

From the city's statement regarding the incident:

Roth called the incident "unfortunate", and said it would be used "as a learning opportunity to do better as we continue to work with our community to make Suisun City a better place for everyone".

So... the police department needs to learn not to insult the public? It seems to me that this is something they should know before being hired.

[u/KalinOrthos]

The irony, with how the police obsess over acting like the local army, is delicious. Or it would be if the police weren't assholes.

[u/harrro]

The "where's your baby mama?" question was more insulting than what followed IMO and an idiotic/racist way for the cop Marler to start the discussion.

[u/mr2jay]

Right away he is hella disrespectful with is that your baby mama? Like fuck you right there

[u/stocks-mostly-lower]

How NOT to conduct a welfare check.

[u/NorskGodLoki]

Problem is....he will just move a town or two over.

Sad. There should be a national revocation of all certifications for these cops.

[u/gerryhallcomedy]

Welfare checks are one of the most dangerous calls out there. Why you would approach one trying to escalate right off is incredibly dumb. Glad this guy got fired.

[u/Strict-Bass6789]

Lol watching that insecure cop try to backpedal was hilarious…he knew he was screwed…biggest killer of cops careers..EGO

[u/DoofusTinyRick]

It’s pronounced “Suh-soon” … sorry for the semantics.

Edit: why not say “partner” instead of “girlfriend” or “baby momma”, if you’re unsure of marital status? It’s just needlessly degrading and ugly.