Legal issues with holding a gun in your home

This ruling is the USSC wiping their collective asses with the constitution

Wait a minute:

quote:

---

a homeless couple who were startled and then shot when the two sheriff’s deputies entered the shack where they were sleeping.

---

??

quote:

---

The deputies were liable for the injuries they caused, the judge ruled, because they had provoked the incident by going on to private property and barging into the shack without a search warrant and without announcing their presence.

---

quote:

---

The case began in 2010 when deputies were searching for a parole violator who was believed to be armed and dangerous. Based on a tip, a dozen deputies went to a house in Lancaster. They did not have a search warrant. Several deputies banged on the front door and pressed to enter, and two others went around to the back where they saw three metal storage sheds and a wooden shack. When one of them opened the door of the shack and pulled back a blue blanket, he startled a man and a woman who were napping. When the man reached for a BB gun, one deputy yelled “Gun!” and the two officers fired 15 shots.

---

The facts in this case seem pretty far removed from what most of us are thinking about, but I guess the legal principles stripped away from the circumstances are still relevant?

I know this situation is different, these cops should face the consequences for their actions, I think any reasonable person can understand that. I am heavily biased to the side of the Leo's normally.

And just to open this up.

No knock warrants are dangerous and the judges that sign them not the officers should be held accountable for the incidents/accidents/shootings or anything else that goes on during these activities.

Put that judges arse on the line and I bet they review the Intel better and these types of raids will dwindle down.

Did you read this part?

quote:

---

In Tuesday’s opinion in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez, tIn Tuesday’s opinion in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez, the justices said the judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were wrong to rely on the [quote]The American Civil Liberties Union had urged the court to uphold the verdict. But David Cole, the ACLU’s national legal director, said the court’s opinion makes clear officers can be held liable in such cases.

“In my view, the decision does not give police a blank check to provoke violence. It holds that where the police act unconstitutionally, they are responsible for the reasonable consequences of their conduct,” Cole said.

---

All the court did was say that adding to the test which they have already set forth is unconstitutional. Essentially, they said we already have a test; you can't go and expand it if you want. They sent it back to determine if the damages could be upheld under the already established test, which I'm sure they will be. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement regarding entering a dwelling, namely hot pursuit. However SCOTUS is not in a position to make that ruling so they send it back to the trial court. People are really freaking out over nothing. SCOTUS didn't say cops can do what these cops did; they said to hold them liable you must use the established test, not whatever you think sounds good.