This is for us SoCal subjects. Source is pg 3 of The Daily Breeze.
Article:
Police had the right to burst into a Hawthorne home, point their guns at an innocent family inside and handcuff the father to serve a search warrant, an appellate court has ruled.
Roger K. Light, a 47-year-old clinical psychologist, and his family claimed their civil rights were violated and they were wrongly detained when a Hawthorne police detective served a warrant and searched their home during an investigation of an identity theft case.
An appellate panel has unanimously upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the Lights’ lawsuit on the grounds that the police detective’s actions were reasonable and he and the department are immune from prosecution.
“It’s an outrage,” said Harold J. Light, Roger Light’s attorney and brother.
Harold Light said he would appeal the 2nd District Court of Appeal’s Dec. 18 ruling to the California Supreme Court and, if need be, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Lights allege that Detective Neil Connor did not conduct an investigation before serving the warrant before 9 a.m. on June 10, 1999, at the Light home in the 4900 block of West 131st Street.
But the attorney who represents the city of Hawthorne, the Police Department and the detective said the officers acted appropriately and politely, and were just doing their jobs in the way they are allowed by law.
“If we want police officers to be absolutely 100 percent sure before making an arrest, think of the criminals we’ll have running around,” Kunle Aderonmu said.
“By this opinion we do not intend to diminish the experience suffered by the Light family when the police burst into their home,” wrote Associate Justice Patti S. Kitching for the appellate court.
Nevertheless, Kitching wrote, the detective believed there was probable cause for a search warrant and, under the law, it was correctly issued and served and, therefore, the lawsuit was rightly dismissed.
The case began on June 7, 1999, when Susan Slaughter contacted Connor to report someone had used her Social Security number to obtain or attempt to obtain telephone service from several companies, including AT&T.
An AT&T corporate security officer told Slaughter that the application for phone service based on her identification was from Light. She then gave Slaughter the Lights’ phone number and address, which Slaughter passed on to Connor.
It was later learned that Light had received a letter from AT&T at his home, but it was addressed to Slaughter. Light, an AT&T customer, called the phone company and asked about the letter, and he was told to return it to the postal carrier.
A few days later, an AT&T representative left a message for Light that said the Slaughter account was a mistake resulting from a partially completed application.
Connor’s investigation before serving the warrant consisted only of driving by Light’s house and running the license plates of the cars parked in the driveway.
Light contends that, at the least, Connor should have called the phone companies or the phone number Slaughter gave him before barging into the home Light and his family owned for 12 years.
When Connor and other officers arrived to serve the warrant, they knocked and announced themselves, but did not wait for the door to be opened before entering. At least four of the officers had their guns drawn.
Light, dressed only in his underwear, was handcuffed for 15 minutes while his daughters, then ages 7 and 3, and a female nanny sat nearby.
The police removed Light’s handcuffs so he could locate information for Connor.
During the search, Light heard Connor say he knew “this was too easy.” There was never any evidence found during the search to link Light to the alleged identity theft and he was never charged.
On June 10, 2000, the Lights sued in the Beach Cities Branch courthouse.
Superior Court Judge Lois A. Smaltz ruled in favor of the police defendants, as well as AT&T. An appeal is pending from the AT&T dismissal.
Wasn't a "no knock" but was treated like one. No due dilligence to determine necessity of search. Looks like these things are rubber stamped thru. Court rules all this is ok.
City attorney says "the police were just doing their jobs in the way allowed by law".
We sure don't get much respect from our courts and police!
Article:
Police had the right to burst into a Hawthorne home, point their guns at an innocent family inside and handcuff the father to serve a search warrant, an appellate court has ruled.
Roger K. Light, a 47-year-old clinical psychologist, and his family claimed their civil rights were violated and they were wrongly detained when a Hawthorne police detective served a warrant and searched their home during an investigation of an identity theft case.
An appellate panel has unanimously upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the Lights’ lawsuit on the grounds that the police detective’s actions were reasonable and he and the department are immune from prosecution.
“It’s an outrage,” said Harold J. Light, Roger Light’s attorney and brother.
Harold Light said he would appeal the 2nd District Court of Appeal’s Dec. 18 ruling to the California Supreme Court and, if need be, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Lights allege that Detective Neil Connor did not conduct an investigation before serving the warrant before 9 a.m. on June 10, 1999, at the Light home in the 4900 block of West 131st Street.
But the attorney who represents the city of Hawthorne, the Police Department and the detective said the officers acted appropriately and politely, and were just doing their jobs in the way they are allowed by law.
“If we want police officers to be absolutely 100 percent sure before making an arrest, think of the criminals we’ll have running around,” Kunle Aderonmu said.
“By this opinion we do not intend to diminish the experience suffered by the Light family when the police burst into their home,” wrote Associate Justice Patti S. Kitching for the appellate court.
Nevertheless, Kitching wrote, the detective believed there was probable cause for a search warrant and, under the law, it was correctly issued and served and, therefore, the lawsuit was rightly dismissed.
The case began on June 7, 1999, when Susan Slaughter contacted Connor to report someone had used her Social Security number to obtain or attempt to obtain telephone service from several companies, including AT&T.
An AT&T corporate security officer told Slaughter that the application for phone service based on her identification was from Light. She then gave Slaughter the Lights’ phone number and address, which Slaughter passed on to Connor.
It was later learned that Light had received a letter from AT&T at his home, but it was addressed to Slaughter. Light, an AT&T customer, called the phone company and asked about the letter, and he was told to return it to the postal carrier.
A few days later, an AT&T representative left a message for Light that said the Slaughter account was a mistake resulting from a partially completed application.
Connor’s investigation before serving the warrant consisted only of driving by Light’s house and running the license plates of the cars parked in the driveway.
Light contends that, at the least, Connor should have called the phone companies or the phone number Slaughter gave him before barging into the home Light and his family owned for 12 years.
When Connor and other officers arrived to serve the warrant, they knocked and announced themselves, but did not wait for the door to be opened before entering. At least four of the officers had their guns drawn.
Light, dressed only in his underwear, was handcuffed for 15 minutes while his daughters, then ages 7 and 3, and a female nanny sat nearby.
The police removed Light’s handcuffs so he could locate information for Connor.
During the search, Light heard Connor say he knew “this was too easy.” There was never any evidence found during the search to link Light to the alleged identity theft and he was never charged.
On June 10, 2000, the Lights sued in the Beach Cities Branch courthouse.
Superior Court Judge Lois A. Smaltz ruled in favor of the police defendants, as well as AT&T. An appeal is pending from the AT&T dismissal.
Wasn't a "no knock" but was treated like one. No due dilligence to determine necessity of search. Looks like these things are rubber stamped thru. Court rules all this is ok.
City attorney says "the police were just doing their jobs in the way allowed by law".
We sure don't get much respect from our courts and police!