Is This Really Legal? Warrantless Entry, Arrest, and Excessive Force in Alabama
January 19, 2016Feature . Feature Img . Recent Stories ArticleA recent post-game celebration in Tuscaloosa, Alabama received national attention after local news reported an altercation between University of Alabama students and local police. Videos of the incident, captured by bystanders, paint a violent picture as police tasered students multiple times, threw them to the ground, struck them with batons and dragged them outside of their apartment.
The video caused an immediate uproar on social media, prompting outrage and calls to eliminate excessive force and police brutality. In response, the Tuscaloosa Police Department promised a full investigation of the circumstances depicted in the video. However, after seeing the videos, many people still have questions about what happened. One Twitter user, reported by the Washington Post, asked a simple question: Is this legal?
The short answer is no, and here is why.
The facts, as shown in the video, actually raise two legal issues. First, was it legal for the police to enter the student’s apartment without a warrant and issue an arrest stemming from a noise complaint? And, second, was the use of force by the police in making the arrest—including the taser—legal?
Let’s start with the first issue. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, including warrantless entry and arrest at individuals’ homes. For minor offenses—such as a noise violation—protection is even greater, according to the Supreme Court. Under Welsh v. Wisconsin, warrantless arrests in homes for relatively minor offenses are presumptively unreasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional. Another case is particularly persuasive, holding that warrantless arrests predicated on violations of a “municipal ordinance regulating conduct that is noncriminal in nature” are per se unreasonable. In these cases, police officers must prove they either received consent to enter—which was clearly not given here (and cannot be given “constructively”—you can’t give consent by being dragged out of your home), or “exigent circumstances”.[1]
So what exactly does that mean?
Well, according to the Supreme Court, exigent circumstances exist in four situations:
(1) where officers must provide emergency assistance to an occupant of the home,
(2) to engage in “hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect after the commission of a felony,
(3) to enter a burning building to put out a fire and investigate its cause, or
(4) to prevent the imminent destruction of evidence.[2]
Importantly, a warrantless arrest at home is not justified where there is no showing of exigent circumstances leading to the arrest itself; that is, if the police created the alleged exigent circumstances, the exception could not apply.
Accordingly, existing case law establishes that warrantless arrests—in the absence of exigent circumstances and clear consent—violate the Fourth Amendment.
The students’ encounter with the police originated with a noncriminal noise complaint. None of those “exigent circumstances” appear in the video or are alleged by the police, there appears to be a clear answer to our question: It was not legal for the police to enter the student apartment and it was not legal to effectuate the arrests under the circumstances.
That leads us to the second issue regarding the use of force. In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court recognizes the long-standing right of police officers to use reasonable force (or threat of force) to arrest individuals. That means that “not every push or shove, even if it may seem unnecessary later,” by the police is excessive and unconstitutional. Instead, the Court articulates a careful balance of the “nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests” against the countervailing governmental interests at stake. Consequently, all claims of excessive police force are subject to this analysis.
The Graham standard is one of objective reasonableness, without consideration of a police officer’s subjective intent or motivation (whether malicious or in good faith). The Graham standard measures this from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene based on the totality of circumstances. That means “20/20 hindsight” is irrelevant; rather, taking into account that circumstances are “often tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.”
Ultimately, in determining reasonableness courts look to the so-called “Graham Factors”, including:
(1) the severity of the crime at issue,
(2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and
(3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
In McNally v. Eve, a federal court applied this analysis to facts nearly analogous to this case. There, police were called to investigate a noise violation at a house party, finding the host wearing only a bathrobe. The host refused the police entrance without a warrant and attempted to turn away when threatened with arrest. The host was then tasered, brought to the ground, and arrested for obstruction of justice. The court found that violating the noise ordinance—and even the alleged crime of obstruction—was of minor severity; that the host, speaking calmly and clearly unarmed, posed no threat to the officer nor anyone else; and, that the host never resisted arrest, nor attempted to flee (even by turning away). Accordingly, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to find the officer’s conduct objectively unreasonable under the circumstances, thus, the conduct was excessive and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Based on the video evidence and existing law, it’s difficult to find the officers’ conduct, in this case, reasonable. As in McNally, the police responded to a noncriminal noise complaint and were refused entrance without a warrant by the unarmed students who made little or no attempt to resist or flee; then the students were tasered and repeatedly beaten with batons while clearly in police custody. (See “00:34–00:37” in the video.) This is particularly significant considering that a suspect, being held on the ground and in police custody, cannot objectively be considered a threat requiring additional force. Hence, under a Graham analysis, the officers’ conduct is almost certainly objectively unreasonable based on the circumstances, and therefore, unconstitutional.
So, the bottom line: the officers’ conduct in the video certainly appear to be illegal.
[1] 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arrest §§ 99, 102 (2015).
[2] 3A Charles Alan Wright, Andrew D. Leipold, Peter J. Henning, & Sarah N. Welling, Federal Practice and Procedure: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure § 678 (4th ed. 2010).
You may also like
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- June 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010