Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Last week a federal appeals court ruled that "exigent circumstances" made it appropriate for Milwaukee police to break into the home of a local gun rights activist without a warrant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit conceded that the officers may have violated the Fourth Amendment when they forced open a locked container and seized the woman's handgun. But the court concluded that they were protected by qualified immunity because it was reasonable for them to believe their actions were legal. After all, they were only trying to protect her. From herself. The decision shows how a single contested remark during a psychotherapy session can strip a law-abiding citizen of her Fourth and Second amendment rights. It also shows how emergency exceptions to the warrant requirement that usually applies to home searches have been stretched to encompass situations that cannot reasonably be viewed as emergencies.
It all began with a call to police around noon on March 22, 2011. Michelle Bentle, a Milwaukee psychiatrist, reported that a patient, Krysta Sutterfield, had talked about suicide during a session that had just ended. According to Bentle, Sutterfield, who had recently received some bad news, said, "I guess I'll go home and blow my brains out." Sutterfield later contradicted Bentle's account, although it is not hard to imagine someone in distress saying something like that without any serious suicidal intent. In any case, that alleged remark was the basis for all that followedthat and the fact that Sutterfield, who was known to exercise her Second Amendment rights by openly carrying a pistol, "had worn an empty gun holster to her appointment, from which [Bentle] surmised that Sutterfield owned a gun."
Police decided to rescue Sutterfield, but it took a while. At first she wasn't home, although evidently she heard the cops were looking for her, because she phoned Bentle around 2:45 p.m. "stating that she was not in need of assistance and that the doctor should 'call off' the police search for her." Bentle passed that information on to the police, who were undeterred. After the call indicating that Sutterfield was alive and well, two officers filled out a Statement of Emergency Detention by Law Enforcement Officer, the form that Wisconsin law prescribes for situations in which police believe someone is mentally ill and apt to harm himself. That form, which requires no judicial approval, is enough for a psychiatric detention lasting up to four days, which may result in further detention and forcible treatment.
What you need is some common sense, like the shrink and the cops used.We need a revolution in this country to get back or freedoms.
Molon Labe
We need a revolution in this country to get back or freedoms.
Molon Labe
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
Just fine considering what?
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
Just fine considering what?
Just fine considering they were dealing with a potentially suicidal, or even homicidal, nut with a gun.
She wore an empty holster to her shrink's office. The results of that and her comment mean you are off on a unpaid vacation with the white-coats for a few days while we figure out just how nuts you actually are.Just fine considering what?
Just fine considering they were dealing with a potentially suicidal, or even homicidal, nut with a gun.
she isnt a nut. If you read the piece you would see she just went through something traumatic. We all handle those things differently. The idea she is a nut is wrong.
We need a revolution in this country to get back or freedoms.
Molon Labe
Uhhh....
Maybe not.
It depends on who's leading the rebellion.
We could end up with something more horrific than obozo quite easily.
We need an electoral revolution. That way we all keep our guns (even the moonbats who have them), and no one has to be slaughtered en masse.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
Just fine considering what?
Just fine considering they were dealing with a potentially suicidal, or even homicidal, nut with a gun.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
Hmm mmm... looking at my copy of the Constitution. . Nope I don't see where it says a shrink can authorize a search and seizure of anyone. Perhaps you can point it or to me.
Molon Labe
Hint, it isn't a search warrant, or even probable cause.
A judgment call but sounds like they played it just fine considering. Society does step in in such cases.
Hmm mmm... looking at my copy of the Constitution. . Nope I don't see where it says a shrink can authorize a search and seizure of anyone. Perhaps you can point it or to me.
Molon Labe
Again you would need to go to the state law and see what that says. If they have a law on the books stating that a doctor must call if patient is in danger than you are going to have trouble arguing 4th.
Wrong again, as usual.What does it take for the cops to break into your house and steal your guns?
Hint, it isn't a search warrant, or even probable cause.
[T]he Fourth Circuit has indicated that the community
caretaking exception may justify a warrantless residential
search when, as in Cady, the search is conducted pursuant to
routine procedure and not for purposes of criminal evidence gathering.
we have never explicitly held that the community caretaking functions of a
police officer permit the warrantless entry into a home[.]
The court rejected Sutterfields contention that the seizure
of the gun and concealed-carry licenses also constituted a
violation of her Second Amendment rights on the facts of this
case. In the courts view, neither McDonald v. City of Chicago,
130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), nor Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.
570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), forecloses the possibility that an
individuals firearm may be seized by the police for certain
purposes.
Perhaps someone can point out where in the Constitution of gives a shrink the right to order the police to detain someone?
Hmm mmm... looking at my copy of the Constitution. . Nope I don't see where it says a shrink can authorize a search and seizure of anyone. Perhaps you can point it or to me.
Molon Labe
Again you would need to go to the state law and see what that says. If they have a law on the books stating that a doctor must call if patient is in danger than you are going to have trouble arguing 4th.
Since when does State laws override the Constitution?
Molon Labe
