Speaker Law
Blog

Sixth Circuit: 9-1-1 May be Invitation to Warrantless Entry....

Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2010
In a published opinion, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression in our circuit: Whether a 9-1-1 "hang call" gives rise to an exception to the 4th Amendment protections against warantless searches. In Johnson v City of Memphis, et al., Johnson was killed when officers entered his home without a warrant after receiving a report from dispatch that there was a hang-up call to 9-1-1 followed by an unanswered return call from the 9-1-1 to Johnson's residence. Johnson's widow filed a lawsuit under sec. 1983, alleging that the warantlees entry by two Memphis officers into Johnson's home without a warrant violated Johnson's 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment.

While hesitant to fashion a per se ruling that 9-1-1 hang calls alone satisfy the exegincy exception to the 4th Amenment's warrant requirement, the Sixth Circuit held that where there is a 9-1-1 hang call, an inability to reach the caller by phone on a return call, and the door of the residence from which the call came is open upon the officer's arrival, the officers have an objectively reasonable basis in which to believe there is someone inside the residence who needs emergency assistance -- thus, satisfying the exigency exception to the 4th Amendment.

The Court noted that the very purpose of a call to 9-1-1 is a request for emergency assistance, and any use of 9-1-1 for non-emergencies places the caller in jeopardy of being charged with a midemeanor. Common sense would dictate that we should hope that officials would follow up on our 9-1-1 calls. It is not unlikely that a caller facing medical crisis would become unconscious during a call to 9-1-1, rendering the caller unable to address the dispatcher further. A rule that limits the authority of rescuers to follow up and provide emergency aide simply because the caller cannot articulate the emergency belies common sense.

Labels: , , , , ,

MSC to Appellant: "Disobey Trial Court Orders and Your no Friend of Mine."

Posted on Monday, August 16, 2010
After hearing argument on application, the Michigan Supreme Court recently issued an Order in lieu of granting leave. remanding a divorce case to the circuit court for clarification of an alimony award. In Friend v Friend , the parties sought a divorce after a 25 year marriage producing two children. The trial court ordered joint legal custody of the couple’s two minor children, while awarding the wife sole physical custody. The trial court permitted the mother to relocate to South Carolina with the children but entered orders for parenting time.

Unfortunately, the children did not wish to see their father for parenting time. The husband suspected that the mother was encouraging the children’s disinclination to see their father. As divorce proceedings continued, the wife continuously refused to abide by court orders entered in an effort to facilitate the relationship between the children and their father. Her lack of effort to take the children to court ordered counseling resulted in a finding of contempt by the trial court. Meanwhile, the trial court ruled on the couple’s property division and spousal support issues.

The wife appealed to the Court of Appeals, seeking clarification of the award. The Court of appeals affirmed and she sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In response to the wife's application, the husband argued that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine barred the wife from seeking redress in the appellate courts because she had failed to follow the trial court's orders in the case.

Although the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for clarification of the alimony award due to the ambiguity as to whether the award was intended to be periodic or alimony in gross, it declined to address the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. Instead, the Court ruled that the wife must abide by the parenting time orders to “purge herself of any outstanding findings of contempt in the circuit court within 90 days of the date of this order.”

Even though the Court declined to adopt the fugitive disentitlement doctrine per se, it is clear from the Court's order that an attorney representing a client in Mrs. Friend's position would be wise to begin rectifying (or prevent) the conditions that led to findings of contempt in the trial court prior to seeking relief on appeal.


Labels: , , , , , , ,

Back to the top

RECENT POSTS

ARCHIVED POSTS

Content © 2016 Speaker Law Firm, PLLC   |   Website designed by AE Lansing Web Design
All major credit cards accepted.
Credit Cards Located 2 blocks from the Hall of Justice
230 N. Sycamore Street Lansing, MI 48933   |   (517) 482-8933