Cops Bust in the Wrong House and Refuse to Leave

[Music] welcome to audit the audits where we sort out the who and what in the right and wrong of police interactions this episode covers 9-1-1 calls the emergency aid doctrine and private exigent circumstances and is brought to us by brian b's channel be sure to check out the description below and give them the credit that they deserve on december 19 2020 officer mcmillian and officer hibbetts of the north brunswick police department responded to a 9-1-1 hang-up call that allegedly originated from the home of an individual who has only identified himself as brian b the officers knocked on mr b's door and began to question him regarding the call while mr b recorded the interaction through the screen door can i help you can i help you yeah everything all right everything's fine from here yeah are you the only one home no who else is home with you my girlfriend my roommate all right everybody's fine all right nobody called somebody called and they said it came back to this address and it said uh they told us there was yelling or something in the background initially then they hung up and they haven't been able to get touched to everyone sense nobody called everybody's fine all right can we talk to them real quick no no we need to well you're not we need to it's not going to happen you don't you don't understand how this works we got a 911 call from this address nobody called 9-1-1 how do i know that bro do i have to prove something to you right now yes we have to speak with everyone who lives here to make sure they didn't call 9-1-1 the officers state that they need to speak with everyone who lives with mr b in order to confirm that they did not call 9-1-1 in general the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals against compelled speech to police officers and only judges have the authority to order an individual to answer a question this means that mr b and the individuals in his home have a constitutional right to remain silent and do not have to answer any questions from police officers even if they are responding to a 9-1-1 call however a court would likely find that the officers were within their authority to confirm that the other members of the household were not responsible for the 9-1-1 call and that the officers were not required to take mr b at his word according to section 2.64.020 of the new brunswick municipal code the police department has both the power and the duty to protect life and property prevent crime and detect and arrest offenders against the penal laws and ordinances effective within the city similarly in the 2012 case of state vs edmonds the supreme court of new jersey concluded that police officers were empowered and duty-bound to enter an apartment to check on a resident when responding to a 9-1-1 call reporting a domestic violence issue even though the alleged victim of the incident who met the officers outside her apartment did not exhibit any injuries and denied that there was any problem the court held that quote the officers were not required to give uncritical acceptance to her denials or honor her objections that they not enter her home given that her 11 year old son was inside and might be endangered the police had a duty to look behind the denials by ms richardson while her son remained potentially in jeopardy in the apartment therefore although the other individuals in mr b's residence could not be forced to speak to the police as we will discuss later in this episode a court would likely conclude that the officers could enter the residence to check on their well-being as soon as we speak with everyone we confirm everything's fine we leave that's it man we just make sure everything's fine what's your name and badge remember macbeth 182 name badge number right there right there is that what you told me why are you giving us such a problem well because you're over here shining a flashlight in my apartment you're over here shining a flashlight let me finish what i was saying into my apartment i mean you're taking care of christmas gifts watching the ufc fight you guys come over here banging like a bunch of animals no one called 9-1-1 and you're giving me a hard time you're shy and you're still shining a flashlight at me turn your flashlight off turn your flashlight off you're not understanding how this works man have a nice night guys now what cell phone number do you have it on record or file or anything seven three two nine four [Music] no one's phone over here all right let's get this sorted out so we will have to come back all right what do you want to sort out what have we not figured it out it's our landline okay okay no there's no landline here but there's still one registered to this house so what do you want me to do for you so there we solved with another one okay so get the [ __ ] out now no no sir you just slammed the door at me get out of the house you don't close the door on the police i don't give you have no right to enter we do actually no you don't it's a wireless entrance so get out mr b tries to end the conversation but the officers do not allow him to close his door forcing their way into his apartment instead while warrantless entries by police such as this are presumed to be an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment as the supreme court explained in the 2011 case of kentucky versus king this presumption may be overcome in some circumstances including quote when the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that a warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the fourth amendment the court then went on to describe several categories of exigent circumstances where warrantless entry to a residence was reasonable including the emergency aid exception which allows officers to quote enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury some courts that have reviewed the issue have determined that a 9-1-1 hang-up and an unanswered return call from the emergency dispatcher is sufficient to allow officers to enter a home without a warrant under the emergency aid exception while other courts disagree however in the 2004 case of state versus frankl the new jersey supreme court adopted a totality of the circumstances standard to determine whether a 9-1-1 hang-up call allows officers to enter a home without a warrant explaining that quote the emergency aid doctrine only requires that public safety officials possess an objectively reasonable basis to believe not certitude that there is a danger and need for prompt action the police officer at the door of course cannot know what type of emergency if any lies inside all he knows is that the caller has dialed an emergency response number in light of the presumptive emergency we cannot conclude that the officer is bound to ignore the warning and walk away the court also concluded that quote a 9-1-1 call is tantamount to a distress call even when there is no verbal communication over the telephone to describe the nature of the emergency the responding police officer is not required to accept blindly the explanation for the 9-1-1 call offered by the resident answering the door but must base his decision on the totality of the circumstances given the direct new jersey precedent on this issue it is likely that a court would uphold the constitutionality of the officer's decision to force entry into mr b's home nonetheless if a similar incident were to occur in a different jurisdiction a court could reach the opposite conclusion get out get out i'm not giving you nothing get out yeah you're not gonna get it get out have i committed a crime am i suspected of committing a crime i have a fourth amendment right bro don't trample my rights you're not gonna get id you do have a right let's go we need your name so you're not going to get it you want us to record that we were out here what happened not going to get it okay so when they call 911 again you want them to come knock you on your door again i want to record that we came here we spoke with you we confirmed that everyone in the house not going to get it nobody's number i'm not going to give it is no longer not going to give you my information because of what you did with the door take your pompous both of you get out of the house once the officers become aware that the 911 from a land line and there are no land lines at mr b's address they ask mr b for his name to document the situation but mr b refuses and demands that the officers leave his residence new jersey does not have a stop and identify statute that would require mr b to identify himself under any circumstances so he was not under any legal obligation to provide the officers with his name or identification additionally he was likely within his rights to ask the officers to leave his property as the potential emergency circumstances that justified the initial entry into the home no longer existed in the edmonds case that we discussed earlier in this episode the court stated that quote when the exigency that justifies immediate action dissipates the rationale for searching without a warrant is no longer present other courts around the country have reached similar conclusions about the limitations of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirements for example in the 2006 case of u.s versus lawrence the district court from minnesota held it quote although the public safety exception to the warrant requirement permitted the officers to enter the home for the limited purpose of checking on the safety of those in the home the exigent circumstances that allowed the officers to enter the home ceased to exist once the officers verified there was no one else in the home injured or hiding similarly in the 2006 case of higdon vs wells county sheriff's office the northern district of indiana held that although officers were initially justified in entering a home under the exigent circumstances doctrine quote once officers secured the home and located all the persons therein capable of destroying evidence the exigencies ceased to exist and they were required to wait for a warrant to continue their search accordingly a court could conclude that the exigent circumstances that allowed the officers to enter mr b's residence no longer existed once they determined that the call did not come from that location and that the officer's continued presence in mr b's home violated the fourth amendment that's it you beat him off and you tried trampling in here you're banging on the door like a bunch of animals came in here trying to throw your fictitious authority around walking into my house is that a warrant get out both of you we need your name sir i'm not giving you nothing get out i'm not answering any questions please get out of my house you understand why we're here right i don't care why you're here get out turn that off so let's turn that light off let me explain this to you jesus christ there you go you see how many of you does it take to see where do you want to what do you want to look at can they shut the door get them out of my house i shut the door with me well i got nothing to say to you this is my boss sir let me keep keep him away from me what's going on i don't want you touching me dude i don't know what's going on sir yeah this is awesome i have an internal affairs complaint on one of the sergeants and now this happens this is retaliatory this is another one going to internal affairs i'm telling you you guys don't know how to quit any of you can i explain you what's going on i want you guys to leave i don't care they don't [Music] i'm just telling you technically it is okay then let's go i'll take it to court i i i'm not you none of you are gonna scare me and bully me none of you you guys try it all the time it's not gonna work what do you have to say that's gonna justify any of this i wanna hear it came out here to investigate a 9-1-1 hang-up okay did anybody call have you have you figured that out no we'd have it okay so what do you have to figure out what do you have to figure out if anybody was in need of assistance man does anybody need assistance perfect i'm trying to go back and finish watching this movie all right so can you please yeah please okay please go have a good day take care after mr b ordered the officers to leave his property more officers began to appear on the scene until a total of nine officers were inside the residence or on the doorstep eventually the officers did leave but according to mr b he received an obstruction ticket in the mail that required mr b to pay attorney fees fines and court costs although it is unclear whether mr b plans to pursue legal action regarding the incident he has created a gofundme campaign to fund his legal expenses regarding the criminal charge overall the north brunswick officers get a c-minus because although they were likely within their authority to enter and make contact with the other residents of mr b's home they also unnecessarily compelled mr b to provide his identifying information and remained inside mr b's residence well after the exigency and reasonableness of their suspicions were dispelled one of the officers claims that they need to get mr b's information in case another 9-1-1 call is made from the same number however mr b was under no legal obligation to provide his identifying information given the fact that the officers were well aware that the 911 call did not originate from mr b's address it is difficult to understand why they couldn't document that information with the address alone if the officers had received another 911 call from the phone number they now had enough information to conclude that it did not originate from mr b's address without needing his identifying information the officer's refusal to leave mr b's residence after they concluded that no crime had occurred was nothing short of unprofessional and irresponsible and it appears as though their reluctance to leave was driven by their insistence on drafting a police report about the incident citizens are under no legal obligation to ensure that department policy is fulfilled in the course of an officer's duty and it is extremely difficult to rationalize the notion that filling out a police report was more important than preserving mr b's fourth amendment protections citizens should never be presented with consequences for not aiding officers in completing their departmental requirements this is yet another interaction that highlights the unsavory results of equating departmental policy to legal obligations and officers and departments would do well in recognizing that fulfilling the bureaucratic requirements of their policies is not the sole priority of law enforcement mr b gets a b because although his hostile demeanor was somewhat justified by the north brunswick's officer's refusal to leave his property he made a concerted effort to block their entry when the officers likely had a legal basis for entering displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of reasonable suspicion and exigent circumstances and failed to invoke his right to remain silent there is no doubt that a majority of mr b's hostility was driven by the officer's conduct and it is relatively clear that this interaction could have been resolved more peacefully if the officers had vacated the scene in a timely manner there is certainly an argument to be made that the officers violated mr b's fourth amendment rights by remaining on the property without a legitimate basis for doing so and mr b was well within his rights to order the officers to leave his home all that said the new jersey supreme court has directly ruled that officers do not need absolute certainty that imminent danger exists in order to enter a property and mr b's initial denial of entry would likely be frowned upon by a new jersey court almost anyone would likely have a hostile reaction to members of law enforcement who refused to leave private property after discovering that no criminal activity was afoot but it is extremely important to bear in mind how your words and actions will reflect to a judge or jury of peers if the case reaches a courtroom invoking the right to silence is not only a powerful tool because of the legal protections that the fifth amendment offers but it can also shield an individual from any personal bias that may arise from the individuals participating within that system while i do commend mr b for having the courage and conviction to remove the officers from his property i would also implore him to take advantage of every constitutional protection that he is entitled to such as remaining silent be sure to give your support to brian b's channel you can find a link in the description below let us know if there's 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: 1,712,503

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: 0I86-UWcp4E

Length: 16min 25sec (985 seconds)

Published: Mon Sep 27 2021