US vs. Nora - Residential Callouts
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- US vs. Nora is a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case involving residential callouts. This is one that changed law enforcement's approach to surrounding and calling out suspects in a big way. Check out the video!
FYI - this incident occurred prior to the Supreme Court's Bruen decision - so Nora's actions outside of his home were illegal under California law.
Now lets end qualified immunity for ALL PEOPLE!
Especially cops!! Stop giving them an excuse to violate peoples rights!! Hold them accountable for all their actions. Good and bad!
If they are doing things legally, then they don't need qualified immunity! PERIOD!!!
Qualified immunity applies when the law isn't clearly settled. Qualified immunity applies when officers are acting in good faith, consistent with their training, and when the law isn't clearly established.
@@AZPoliceLawyer Bringing a complaint of bad faith to the court is beyond the means of most people who are abused by the police. Do I think QI should be eliminated? Yes.
@@AZPoliceLawyer Why is it citizens are not given that same latitude?
@USMC6976 - Citizens aren't responsible for acting under the authority of law. Police officers (and a limited number of other public officials) are tasked with acting on behalf of the government and face situations where the law isn't clearly established.
Remember, the original qualified immunity case came about when a police officer was enforcing a law that was enacted by the legislature (and had not been challenged in court/found to be unconstitutional). Officers are expected to enforce the law - even if the law is eventually found to be unconstitutional. Citizens don't face the same expectation (as they aren't enforcing laws or acting under the authority of the government).
Thanks for your comment - and for your question. For more information on qualified immunity, check out this video - ruclips.net/video/V4eYDWWJc1g/видео.html
An issue here is that "an environment that makes officers want to catch bad guys" is fostering a belief in the officers that they are QUALIFIED to determine "badness." They are not. That is left to the courts, because as far back as Pierson v Ray, the supposition is that officers can't even be expected to understand the laws that they purport to enforce. This is how we got "qualified immunity."
I'd be ecstatic if the average officer could just accurately and dispassionately spot situations where they have probable cause or ACTUAL reasonable articulable suspicion (not just "boah, I am suspicious of you") in a competent manner. Informing them that they are the bold, heroic arbiters of "badness" is asking for trouble, as it's way past a LEO's paygrade.
It should always be excessively difficult for government to take your freedom and/or property. Better that 10 guilty men go free, than one innocent man be convicted.
It is legal, even in California although the 9th Circuit may not recognize it; to carry a loaded concealed firearm one one’s property. Even when standing outside of the front yard fence, Nora was undoubtedly standing on his property, even if it subject to a public easement.
The Supreme Court had not decided Bruen at the time that this incident occurred. At the time, Nora's actions outside of his home were illegal under California law.
@@AZPoliceLawyer just because some fascist legislators and jurists declare a behavior on one’s own property as being illegal, doesn’t make it so. I was in a Georgia courtroom in ‘71 or ‘72 when a judge dismissed a carrying a concealed weapons charge against a person on his own property. Some apply the law while others invent it. Rights are not wrong.
The law is an ass - Charles Dickens, 200 years ago. Little has changed.
Weird… your personal property isn’t ‘public’ property.
To be charged with carrying in ‘public’ the person should be required to be on public property.
Acting on their training and policies….HOW ABOUT ACTING & FOLLOWING THE LAW!
Cops in (Florida I think) arrested a guy for something the law specifically listed as legal. It wasn't even buried deep in a subsection either. Like part A: you can't do that. part B: unless you're at home or on your property. He was in his yard.
So its become apparent to me that a lot of these violations lately are coming out of California. Who’s to say what the 9th circuit will consider “exigent circumstances”.
Do police not have to complete yearly continuing education? It is ridiculous how little at least 75% of them seem to know about the law and constitutional rights.
They have to complete training sessions, no one says they have to become educated nor demonstrate competency.
IANAL but I would think that since possession of firearm is not a crime and neither is walking away from police and entering your own home the police had no probable cause to do anything. The cops said that they did not know the men in question so they had no idea that Nora was prohibited from owning guns.
Bad cops! No donuts for you.
This case came out before the Supreme Court decided Bruen, so the officers were evaluating the situation based upon caselaw at the time
Was it illegally carrying? He was on the sidewalk, but it is till his property with a public easement.
Remember, this situation happened prior to the Supreme Court's Bruen decision
If he was at his house he was not in public if he was on the sidewalk they didn't see the gun at that point so the whole thing is a farce.
This case came out before Bruen, so officers were evaluating the situation based upon caselaw prior to that holding.
At 2:50, "There was no real danger that evidence would be lost". So Nora couldn't flush the drugs?
They have no reasonable articulable suspicion prior to the arrest, so no.
I like the point Tools , Options, Limitations . That is a learned on the job skill. Unfortunately police have the tendency to throw those needed tools out of the equation because of the hype of the situation and the job as law enforcement . Their objective should be observation gathering gather of intelligence and sometimes thing happen so fast , they react then comes their act.
detain , arrest . Create their narrative with other associates . Note I wrote create their narrative, to their advantage often lie and live by that created lie on a formal document so the PA can file court proceedings. Thus the two items of a checklist as above Options , and Limitations. Cops and the justice system try to put a over sized round object in a small square box.
"Create their narrative with other associates" ...With their Bodycams muted, to Conspire with other cops. How is that Still legal?
Arizona should have more seminars with You, instead of the sociopath military training they get from, "Shoot First, because the most important thing is to go home to your family" Groups. Some of the most egregious rights violators in the country come from Phoenix(Mesa, etc) & Tucson areas.
Looks like ignorant incompetent cops, imagine that.
It's not good policing if the cops were wrong. The cops failed to follow the law themselves and a person who probably should be incarcerated isn't.
Cops systemically fail to follow the law. Cops get sued every day. Cops are supposed to know that they can't arrest someone on their own property unless they are fleeing from a felony level crime. The problem is that cops don't every really get into trouble when they don't follow the law. Sure, you can sue them sometimes, but the cops virtually never pay the settlement, the taxpayers pay the settlement.
If he had a Public Defender, he'd be in jail for 10 years.
If they saw the gun and he was a felon not allowed to have guns that us evidence enough for a federal felon in possession charge without all the inside house stuff
They knew he was a felon before all this?
However, they said they didn't know him so they had no idea if Nora was a felon. The police like to treat everyone as a criminal but they shouldn't.
But they have no clue who the guy is or what record he might have, if any. That old adage "the information the officer had AT THE TIME" is a sword that swings both directions. In this case, all the info they had was that a guy possibly on his own curtilege might have had a loaded firearm, which might or might not have constituted some sort of violation.
At the time, in California, the way Nora displayed the gun was illegal. This was prior to the Supreme Court's Bruen decision
So LE need a warrant to make announcements now?
You can make announcements - but ordering someone out of the home at gunpoint can be problematic if you don't have exigency.
If you have to violate the law in order to enforce the law, you are no better then the criminal. Even if your intentions are good. You, the officer, swore to uphold the law to get that badge. Hold yourselves to that higher standard you all talk about. Follow your own rules and regulations. It WILL foster that respect you want from the people you swore to protect. How bout take a few classes on the constitution. Get a better idea of the promises you made when you received your bagde. It's up to you to better your profession. Not Joe Blow on the street. Integrity is hard for some to practice, so show it at least when you wear that uniform. Anyways, not here trying to get on anyone's case, just want to help makes things better for both sides of that blue line.
Typical tone deaf cop.
Please, get back to your sovereign citizen activities of oppressing citizens and covering up to other bad cops.
What would law enforcements' response be to an average person yelling at a residence for some one to come out?
If a private citizen can't do it law enforcement can't either.
That is the easiest way to determine if you are safe from lawsuit.