This article will review what authority police need to search your home and the manner in which it should be done.
The police are standing at your door—do you need to let them in? No, police generally need a warrant to search your home, and you can ask them to show you the warrant. If the police don’t have one, you can refuse them entry. If the officer hands you a warrant, make sure that it specifies your address.
Typically, the search warrant will be a document signed by a judge that allows a police officer to search for specific items at a particular place and time. For example, a search warrant may authorize a police search of "a single-family home located at 123 Main St." for "drugs and drug paraphernalia, packaging materials, scales, and other devices used for the preparation, sale, and administration of said drugs, any United States currency, and any weapons."
Several exceptions to the warrant requirement exist. For instance, when police don’t have a warrant, they can simply ask the person in control of the premises to consent to a search of their home. Officers don’t have to inform the person that they can refuse consent. Saying “no” to a fully uniformed officer can be intimidating, so this method tends to frequently work for officers.
Other exceptions that permit warrantless entry into a home include when officers are in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, when an officer sees contraband (illegal items) in plain view, or when certain emergency or urgent circumstances exist (someone is screaming for help in the home).
Even with the warrant, officers can’t generally barge into a home unannounced. Called the knock-and-announce or knock-notice rule, this rule requires officers to announce their presence before entering a person's home. Officers must knock on the door, announce their presence and purpose, and give the property owner a chance to open the door before entering. (Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995).)
Requiring officers to knock and announce themselves is meant to:
Unfortunately, the rule doesn’t always work how it’s supposed to. Some officers might only give an occupant seconds to open the door, which may not be enough time for the confused and bewildered homeowner to register what's occurring. If it's the middle of the night, more confusion and panic can ensue.
Like the warrant exceptions noted above, many exceptions exist that dispense with the knock-and-announce rule. Officers generally don't need to knock, announce, and wait if they:
If officers anticipate these circumstances in advance, they can apply for a no-knock warrant from a judge. Other times, they dispense with the knocking and announcing based on exigent circumstances upon arriving at the home.
Police searches should be conducted in a reasonable and respectful manner. This requirement includes showing the occupant of the home a copy of the warrant upon request. But if the occupant doesn't ask, the officer doesn't need to immediately display the warrant.
Police can search only the place described in the warrant. For example, if they have a warrant to search your car, they can't also search your house.
Officers can seize any contraband or evidence of a crime that they find while executing a warrant, even if the object isn't mentioned in the warrant. Officers can also take reasonable steps to protect themselves during a search, such as telling the occupants of the place to be searched to remain in a certain area and even handcuffing them.
If an officer announces their purpose to enter the home and the person refuses, the officer can break down any outer or inner door or window to conduct the search. A no-knock warrant might also permit this type of entry. But if the occupant complies with officers’ demands in a timely manner, police should not break down doors for any other purpose beyond what’s necessary to conduct the search and ensure officer and occupant safety.
In some instances, damage to property may be inevitable during a search. However, officers shouldn’t bust open cabinets and doors or destroy property if a simple request to the occupant will do. The basic rule is that police should act in a reasonable manner and not abuse their authority.
People's homes are their castles, and the Fourth Amendment requires officers searching them to do so in a reasonable manner. If officers act unreasonably, a court may exclude evidence that they find. In the Thompson case (above sidebar), the court found that the officers acted unreasonably and threw out the evidence they found during the search.
An aggrieved citizen might also have a claim for civil liability against the officer or the law enforcement agency for certain unreasonable actions taken in the search. The basis for such claims could include invasion of privacy, trespass, or property damage.
If the police ask to search your home or you've been the subject of a police raid, talk to an experienced criminal defense attorney. An attorney can explain the law in your jurisdiction and protect your rights. If you feel that officers violated your rights with an illegal or unreasonable search, you may want to talk to a civil rights or personal injury attorney about filing a complaint or a lawsuit.
]]>Generally, citizens can (successfully) sue the police for infliction of emotional distress in one of two instances, when an officer:
But if the court determines that the conduct was within the scope of the officer’s law-enforcement duties, that officer is generally immune (and can't be held liable).
Someone alleging that an officer intentionally caused emotional distress must generally show that:
Conduct is extreme and outrageous when it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency; it is behavior that society won’t tolerate. Conduct qualifies as extreme and outrageous when it would cause a reasonable person in a similar circumstance to suffer extreme emotional distress; it must be more than annoying, offensive, or humiliating.
Courts decide whether conduct is extreme and outrageous on a case-by-case basis. The court may consider whether:
In one federal case, for example, a woman offered support to her husband, who was under arrest and being interrogated for the murder of her three-year-old daughter. The detective who heard her offer of support yelled at her that her husband killed the child and that the husband never loved her or her daughter. The officer was in a position of authority and the mother was particularly susceptible to emotional distress at that time. The conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous for an intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. (Fox v. Hayes, 600 F.3d 819 (7th Cir. 2010).)
Extreme and outrageous conduct is actionable if the officer either intended to cause or recklessly disregarded the likelihood that the conduct would cause emotional distress. Conduct that is simply mean, spiteful, or uncaring normally isn’t sufficient.
For example, in another federal case, an officer was attempting to arrest a suspect for passing checks on a closed account. The officer allowed the suspect’s mother to go into the house and retrieve bank records proving that the account wasn't closed. When she attempted to show the documents to the officer, he told her that she shouldn't interfere in police business and threw her against a car, injuring her neck and back. The court held that the officer’s conduct was outrageous and done with the virtual certainty that emotional distress would result. (Thomas v. Frederick, 766 F.Supp. 540 (W.D. LA. 1991).)
Emotional distress is severe when:
Intensity and duration are factors courts consider in determining whether distress is severe; it's typically not severe if it is slight or short-lived.
For example, in yet another federal case, the plaintiff sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to being beaten and pepper-sprayed by police. But weight loss, embarrassment, confusion, and one visit to a psychologist didn’t show emotional distress that was sufficiently severe. (Vincent v. Prince George's County, MD, 157 F. Supp. 2d 588 (D. Md. 2001).)
Citizens can also sue police officers when the latter cause emotional distress negligently, rather than intentionally or recklessly. The extent of emotional harm required for a successful lawsuit depends on the jurisdiction.
But in order for there to be potential liability for negligently caused emotional distress, the officer must owe a “duty of care” to the citizen. In other words, the court will consider whether the officer had some kind of special relationship with the plaintiff that’s distinct from the general police responsibility to the public at large.
For example, in a Louisiana case, a rape victim sued a sheriff for the emotional distress she suffered when the evidence in her case was mistakenly destroyed before a suspect had been arrested. The court held that the duty to preserve evidence goes to the general public, and that law enforcement doesn’t owe any special duty to protect an individual from the misplacement or mistaken destruction of evidence. (Dennis v. Wiley, 22 So.3d 189 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2009).)
Ironically enough, some states require physical injury for emotional distress suits. This injury might be directly caused by the officer’s conduct or a physical manifestation of emotional suffering.
Courts are more likely to require physical harm in negligent infliction of emotional distress cases. But even if it’s not required, physical harm resulting from emotional distress, such as ulcers, headaches, or a miscarriage, will make it easier to prove the case.
In one case, the plaintiff claimed to have been assaulted during an arrest on a college campus. The court rejected the emotional distress claim because there was no evidence of physical symptoms resulting from distress. The only physical injuries suffered were from the assault, not the emotional trauma the plaintiff claimed to have experienced. (Godette v. Stanley, 490 F.Supp.2d 72 (D. Mass. 2007).)
Keep in mind that this article discusses the law generally, and that the rules that apply to a situation you face will depend on your jurisdiction. If you’re wondering whether you have a viable lawsuit against the police (including the government that the police is a part of), consider consulting an attorney experienced in cases like yours. Potential lawyers to consult include ones specializing in civil rights or personal injury. An experienced lawyer can explain the law that applies to your situation, analyze the merits of your claim, and review potential defenses for the police and government.
If you also have a criminal case, make sure to talk to your criminal defense attorney—you don't want a civil lawsuit compromising your interests as a criminal defendant.
]]>