No products in the cart.

News

Shock FedGov Court Ruling: Police Can Kick In Your Door And Seize Guns Without Warrant Or Charges

police raid

This article was written by Mac Slavo and originally published at SHTFplan.com

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals may have just dealt a serious blow to the U.S. Constitution.

In a unanimous decision earlier this month the Court determined that law enforcement officers are not required to present a warrant or charges before forcibly entering a person’s home, searching it, and confiscating their firearms if they believe it is in the individual’s best interests.

The landmark suit was brought before the court by Krysta Sutterfield of Milwaukee, who had recently visited a psychiatrist for outpatient therapy resulting from some bad news that she had received. According to court records Sutterfield had expressed a suicidal thought during the visit, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, when she said “I guess I’ll go home and blow my brains out.” This prompted her doctor to contact police.

For several hours the police searched for Sutterfield, speaking with neighbors and awaiting her return home. They received an update from her psychiatrist who said that Sutterfield had contacted her and advised that she was not in need of assistance and to “call off” the search, which the doctor did not agree to. Police eventually left and Sutterfield returned home, only to be visited later that evening by the lead detective on the case:

Krysta Sutterfield vs. city of Milwaukee, et al.

Sutterfield answered Hewitt’s knock at the front door but would not engage with her, except to state repeatedly that she had “called off” the police and to keep shutting the door on Hewitt. Sutterfield would not admit Hewitt to the residence, and during the exchange kept the outer storm door closed and locked. Unable to gain admittance to the house, Hewitt concluded that the police would have to enter it forcibly.

Sutterfield called 911 in an effort to have the officers leave; as a result of that call, the ensuing events were recorded by the emergency call center. Sutterfield can be heard on the recording telling the officers that she was fine and that she did not want anyone to enter her residence.

After informing Sutterfield of his intention to open the storm door forcibly if she did not unlock it herself, Berken yanked the door open and entered the house with the other officers to take custody of Sutterfield pursuant to the statement of detention. A brief struggle ensued.

Sutterfield can be heard on the 911 recording demanding both that the officers let go of her and that they leave her home. (Sutterfield would later say that the officers tackled her.) Sutterfield was handcuffed and placed in the officers’ custody.

At that point the officers conducted a protective sweep of the home. In the kitchen, officer James Floriani observed a compact disc carrying case in plain view. He picked up the soft-sided case, which was locked, and surmised from the feel and weight of its contents that there might be a firearm inside. He then forced the case open and discovered a semi-automatic  handgun inside; a yellow smiley-face sticker was affixed to the barrel of the gun, covering the muzzle. Also inside the case were concealed-carry firearm licenses from multiple jurisdictions other than Wisconsin. Elsewhere in the kitchen the officers discovered a BB gun made to realistically resemble a Glock 29 handgun.

The contents of the case were seized along with the BB gun and placed into police inventory for safekeeping.

Berken would later state that he authorized the seizure of the handgun in order to keep them out of the hands of a juvenile, should a juvenile enter the house unaccompanied by an adult while Sutterfield remained in the hospital.

Sutterfield subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee with the district court, a case that was initially dismissed. She then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District claiming that her Second and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

In a 75-page opinion the court, while pointing out that the intrusion against Sutterfield was profound, sided with the city of Milwaukee:

“The intrusions upon Sutterfield’s privacy were profound,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel.

“At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one’s home.”

But the court also found, that on the other hand, “There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm.”

“Even if the officers did exceed constitutional boundaries,” the court document states, “they are protected by qualified immunity.”

As noted by Police State USA, the court may have just created a legal loophole for law enforcement officials around the country, giving them immunity from Constitutional violations if they merely suggest that exigent circumstances exist and that they are acting in the best interests of the health and safety of an alleged suspect, regardless of Constitutional requirements:

In short, Sutterfield’s privacy (which was admittedly encroached upon) was left unprotected by the Bill of Rights because of the “exigent circumstances” in which police executed an emergency detention — with no warrant, no criminal charges, and no input from the judiciary.   Similarly, the gun confiscation was also deemed as acceptable due to the so-called “emergency” which police claimed had been taking place for 9 consecutive hours.

The federal ruling affirms a legal loophole which allows targeted home invasions, warrantless searches, and gun confiscations that rest entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch. The emergency aid doctrine enables police to act without a search warrant, even if there is time to get one. When the government wants to check on someone, his or her rights are essentially suspended until the person’s sanity has been forcibly validated.

The implications of the courts legal decision are alarmingly broad. Though this particular case involved exigent circumstances in which an individual suggested she wanted to commit suicide, albeit tongue-in-cheek, the court’s opinion suggests that such tactics can be applied for any “emergency” wherein police subjectively determine that an individual may be a danger to themselves or others.

Under new statutes passed by the federal government these emergencies and dangers could potentially include any number of scenarios. Senator Rand Paul recently highlighted that there are laws on the books that categorize a number of different activities as having the potential for terrorism, including things like purchasing bulk ammunition. Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them “domestic terrorists.” Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list.  Non-conformists who do not subscribe to the status quo can now be considered mentally insane according to psychiatrists’ Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders.

Law enforcement has an almost unlimited amount of circumstances they can cite to justify threats to one’s self or others, and thus, to ignore Constitutional requirements when serving at the behest of the local, state or federal government.

Has the Federal Court’s latest decision made it possible for these vaguely defined suspicious activities to be molded into exigent circumstances that give police the right to enter homes without due process, confiscate legally owned personal belongings, and detain residents without charge?

Resources: Police State USA, The Daily Sheeple, Infowars, Journal Sentinel, Blacklisted News

0

ldiffey

Oath Keepers Merchandise

10 comments

  1. Is there any recourse left for the citizen? Do the Appeals court magistrates in this case realize how damaging their decision will be? Can anyone point out a judge who has placed our liberty above expediency? I haven’t heard of one.At best,the judges in this case have no clue as to The gross exploitation and abuse Their decision will set in train.They make their deliberations in a bubble.So what is left for us? Even in cases in which our rights have been upheld,the opinions of the judges display a left-handed,reluctant acknowledgement of fundamental principle,and Frequent malapropisms in wording. Case in point is the recent shall-issue Peruta case here in Ca. One judge’s opinion referred to the “Privilege”of bearing arms!- then went on to mention the “Carefully constructed” set of firearms laws here in Ca. Carefully constructed by whom?….Leland Yee? DeLeon? Excuse my fulminations.I feel as though we are being left to our own devices, and that the example set by those folks in that Nevada riverbed should be taken to heart.

  2. Amen to that Neil, unfortunately with the courts and these judges making these rulings, we will see more of this type of intrusion that will inevitably lead to something going awry. They are setting the precedent and mentality of “us vs. them” in my opinion and things do not bode well. God give us wisdom and strength to combat this enemy from within…
    Semper Fi
    Do or die

  3. Damn, I have had to take this action as a LEO a couple of times but then not without a lot of thought and consideration. Every person I felt needed this type of intervention was clearly expressing signs of paranoia and mental instability. Each time the person had upset their neighbors who had called the police due to the individuals actions. The officers actions are totally shocking and unacceptable in my opinion. These federal court rulings are slowly stripping our constitutional freedoms away. There is a rare time and place for such police actions but I say these actions should be extremely RARE and have only occurred twice in my 30 plus LEO career thank God.

  4. Until “WE the People” ourselves and as the militia start ENFORCING the US Constitution and each state Constitution there will be corruption, traitors, and domestic enemies of the USA destroying our nation.

    The US Constitution says that judges can ONLY keep their position as long as they use “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms. It also makes clear that the judicial branch is NOT beholden to the executive branch or the legislative branch for its powers..

    The US Constitution says what all judges, both state and federal, must do to be allowed to stay in a judicial position. We already know that they are lawfully required to take and keep an oath, or in the case of some judges – two oaths. So when are judges not doing the duty assigned to them in a lawful manner? According to the US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1:

    The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    James Madison, Fed 39: “According to the provisions of most of the constitutions, again, as well as according to the most respectable and received opinions on the subject, the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behaviour.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention: “…The tenure by which the Judges are to hold their places, is, as it unquestionably ought to be, that of good behaviour…”

    Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
    Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”

    Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    The judicial branch of the federal government is not in place to “interpret” the Constitution of the United States of America, but to decide if a law, bill, treaty, case is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF – they are to make sure that they are following the US Constitution.

    What powers did the US Constitution assign to those who serve within the judiciary?

    US Constitution, Article III Section. 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..” (caps mine)

    This does not mean that any law created is to be upheld by the justices. The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created, it is only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution: “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Article VI says that only the laws that are made in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution are lawful here in the USA. Anything else disguised as “law” is not legal or binding on US Citizens.

    It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

    “… The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    ALL justices – federal and state – MUST support the US Constitution and follow it or they no longer meet the contract – bound and verified and PERSONALLY guaranteed by taking the Oath of Office – would no longer lawfully be occupying the position they are serving in. Under our laws all justices must make their case decisions based on that those cases are “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” or found to NOT be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution” first to be lawful decisions. They are using “Good Behaviour” and are keeping the contract agreed to when they do so. Those justices that “interpret” the US Constitution, base their decisions on “precedent” without verifying that “precedent” to be “in PURSUANCE THEREOF the US Constitution”, or on foreign law are no longer in “Good Behaviour” and have broken the contract that they are under.

    Who decides if “Good Behaviour” is being used by the judges?

    The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people’s unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.

    Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people, as jurors. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors. We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it’s guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using “Good Behaviour”.

    In the courtrooms as a jury, the people are the ones who lawfully decide a case brought against a person. More importantly they are to decide if the law is a good law or not as a jury. A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented and/or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. Basically the jurors are the judges of both law and fact. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite any belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged.  The jury nullifies a law that it believes is either a bad law.

    Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right. The first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law.”
    And “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

    Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Paine: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    John Adams: “It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

    “though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else?

    James Madison, Federalist 46, 315-23: “The Foederal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes… They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents.”

    It is past time we started removing judges as the US Constitution assigns us.

  5. I’d also like to add that many states have passed laws allowing a psychiatrist to get what is called a civil detention order against anyone they think may be a risk to themselves or others. I don’t agree with this because an anti-gun psychiatrist can use this order for any reason on anyone they have seen – as they are currently being used against many military and police veterans today. Once imposed the outcome is you completely loose your rights to own, possess and purchase firearms forever and in some states this includes ammunition. It is almost impossible to get this overturned. This is an example of a state passed law (good or bad) that once imposed on someone causes them to automatically be kicked into the federal system involving federal agencies. The whole system is falling apart in my opinion.

  6. @ Steve

    I heard that also, and I agree with your assessment of it. It is being used here in the USA against our against vets, gunowners, etc.

  7. Now we know how the Jew felt in 1939 Nazi Germany.
    We have a ROGUE element of TRAITORS that are CURRENTLY in control
    of the American Media, Presidential, POLITICAL, Law Enforcement, and trying
    to gain control of Military and Nuclear Launch assets.
    Our Nation has Already been OVER RUN by NWO Banker controlled COMMUNIST
    TRAITORS.
    Law Enforcement is CURRENTLY being used to round up Patriots
    to America. License plate recognition and civilian Law Enforcement
    are CURRENTLY being used to round up and eliminate anyone in opposition
    to the TRAITORS that have taken over our America.
    I was detained. Witnessed TWO confirmed MURDERS by OFFICIALS at a Regional Correctional Facility.
    I was TORTURED, My Human rights were violated, starved for 7 days, no water for 4 days.
    No Lawyer. No phone call allowed to go outside of the facility. No bail. No Due Process.
    You folks better wake up. TRAITORS are in charge.
    We Fight back or just Die. Those are the only options.
    When they kick in your door FIGHT like a cornered Wolverine.
    Remember the Alamo.

    [Editor’s Note: Reality2014Amerika, Your statement about being tortured, starved, etc is totally vague. Who starved you, tortured you? Where was that? What were the pretenses or charges under which you were detained? You need to tell us some more details in order to make that part of your comment more credible. Thank you.
    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor]

  8. And must be partnering with Jihad camps in America because they are protected and have been here awhile.

  9. [Editor’s Note: Reality2014Amerika, Your statement about being tortured, starved, etc is totally vague. Who starved you, tortured you? Where was that? What were the pretenses or charges under which you were detained? You need to tell us some more details in order to make that part of your comment more credible. Thank you.
    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor]

    During WW2 I doubt if anyone would believe an escapee from a Nazi death camp.
    Starving people?
    Systematic slaughter and murder?
    Gassing unarmed men, women, children?
    Murdering and then confiscation of the victims assets?
    Ovens for human beings?
    “Impossible. How can you prove what you saw and be more credible?”
    That is what a Nazi death camp escapee would have likely been told too.
    Same then as today.
    People do Not want to Believe or accept the truth. Not then. Not NOW in Amerika in 2014.
    YES it is HAPPENING.
    What other Rational explanation is there for Obummers actions?
    COMMUNIST MURDER. That is how they seize and hold Power. MURDER. That is what they do.

    [Editor’s Note: Jess, you quoted a part of what I wrote to “Reality2014Amerika”. Are you the same person who posted the comment under the name “Reality2014Amerika”. Are you him? If so, why the different names? And why did “Reality2014Amerika” forget to answer my questions? If you are not him, what was your purpose in quoting that particular part of my comment to him? Thanks in advance for your reply.
    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor]

Comments are closed.