• email
  • share

Supreme Court Rules That Police Officers Are Justified In Entering A Home Without A Warrant When A Woman Flees Inside After Being Asked Whether She Owns A Gun

Plaintiffs brought an action against police officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that the officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights by entering their home without a search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision and held that the Fourth Amendment allows officers to enter a residence without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable belief that an occupant is imminently threatened with serious injury. In this case, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity given the mother’s odd behavior and the circumstances surrounding the officers’ arrival at the residence.

Officers Ryburn and Zepeda, along with two other officers from the Burbank Police Department, were informed by the principal at Bellamine-Jefferson High School that a student identified as Vincent Huff was rumored to have written a letter threatening to “shoot up” the school. The principal was concerned for the safety of the other students and asked the officers to investigate the threat.

During the course of the investigation, the officers learned that Vincent was frequently the subject of bullying, and he had not been in school for the past two days. Officers also interviewed Vincent’s classmates, one of whom expressed his belief that Vincent was capable of carrying out the alleged threat. The officers were specially trained in the area of targeted school violence and they recognized that all these factors were a cause for concern.

The officers responded to Vincent’s home in order to interview him. Officer Zepeda knocked on the door several times and announced that he was from the Burbank Police Department. When no one answered the door Officer Zepeda then proceeded to place a call to the home. The officers could hear the phone ringing inside the home but it remained unanswered. Sergeant Ryburn then called the cell phone of Vincent’s mother, Mrs. Huff. When Mrs. Huff answered the phone, Sergeant Ryburn identified himself and asked her about her location. Mrs. Huff stated that she was at home along with Vincent. A few minutes later, both Mrs. Huff and Vincent came outside. The officers advised them regarding the nature of their visit and the rumored threats. Vincent appeared to be aware of the threats and he stated, “I can’t believe you’re here for that.” At this point, the officers asked if they can continue the interview inside, but Mrs. Huff refused. Based on his experience while working at the juvenile bureau, Sergeant Ryburn thought it was “extremely unusual” that a parent would decline a request to interview the juvenile inside, and also found it odd that Mrs. Huff never inquired about the officers’ reason for the visit. Following her refusal to allow the officers to come inside her home, Sergeant Ryburn asked Mrs. Huff if there were any guns inside her residence. At this point, Mrs. Huff immediately turned around and ran inside her house.

The officers entered the home because they did not know what was inside the home, and they were concerned about the safety of the occupants and the other officers. Once inside the home, the officers remained in the living room with Mrs. Huff and Vincent. The officers were inside the house for approximately 5 to 10 minutes during which time they spoke to Vincent and Mrs. Huff. The officers did not conduct any type of search and eventually concluded that the rumor was false.

The Huffs filed suit against the police officers and alleged that the officers violated their 4th Amendment rights because they entered their home without a warrant. Following a two-day bench trial, the District Court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because Mrs. Huff’s odd behavior, combined with the information the officers gathered at the school, could have led reasonable officers to believe “that there could be weapons inside the house, and that family members or the officers themselves were in danger.” The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the District Court’s finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and held that “any belief that the officers or other family members were in serious, imminent harm would have been objectively unreasonable, given that Mrs. Huff merely asserted her right to end her conversation with the officers and returned to her home.”

The Supreme Court held that the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for fearing that violence was imminent. The Supreme Court noted that the Ninth Circuit’s method of analyzing each and every event in isolation, as opposed to considering the combination of events as whole, was unrealistic. The Court also warned that judges should be cautious about second-guessing a police officer’s assessment, made on the scene, of the danger presented in a particular situation.