Title: Cops Break Into Innocent Sleeping Woman’s Home, Shoot Her—Now She Faces Life in Prison Source:
From The Trenches/FTP URL Source:https://fromthetrenchesworldreport. ... he-faces-life-in-prison/258613 Published:Dec 11, 2019 Author:Matt Agorist Post Date:2019-12-12 02:25:02 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:19765 Comments:93
Winter Park, FL — Bobbie Sapp, 49, is a registered nurse, who has no criminal past. Despite never having committed a crime, because of the backward justice system in America, coupled with violent police welfare checks, Sapp is now facing the possibility of life behind bars.
On the night in question, Sapp had done nothing wrong, had committed no crime, and harmed no one—yet police broke into her home, raided her bedroom as she slept, and shot her. Then, they had the audacity to arrest her and charge her with multiple felonies.
Sapp’s nightmare began in September of 2017 as she slept comfortably in her own bed in her own home. Instead of waking up to her alarm that fateful morning, Sapp would wake up to multiple shadowy figures surrounding her in her bedroom, pulling off her covers, yelling at her, tasering her, and eventually, shooting her.
Sapp is so confident that she did nothing wrong that she went on camera recently with News 6 Orlando to tell her side of the story. It is nothing short of shocking. She says the entire incident began because her disgruntled ex-boyfriend used a police welfare check to deliberately harm her. It worked.
“He used this wellness check as a way to put me in harm’s way,” she said.
Indeed, instead of actually investigating the situation by knocking on the door, calling her, or any other number of non-violent means, cops helped this man — who did not live in the house and could have been anyone — break in to her home and then shoot this woman on his behalf.
“My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator.
Sapp says these were all lies. If she actually wanted to kill herself, she could’ve used one of the two guns which she regularly sleeps with. She did not.
“She is very well armed,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun.
“She’s threatened suicide by cop before,” he said.
There is no record of Sapp ever attempting to commit suicide by herself or by cop before. Also, if she was trying to commit suicide by cop that night — she would have had to call the cops. She did not call the police.
“I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop,” Sapp told News 6.
Nevertheless, police show up to the home and start taking directions from Sapp’s ex, who did not live there.
“There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don’t want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me,” Sapp’s ex-boyfriend said during the call.
When police arrived on scene, Sapp’s ex showed them how to break into the home and they followed his directions.
“I’m asking if there’s any weapons in the house, he tells me there’s enough weapons in the house to start a revolution,” officer Jeff Marcum, one of the responding officers, said according to an interview obtained by News 6.
Those weapons consisted of two pistols recovered from Sapp’s bed after she’d been shot.
Police claim that when they were breaking into Sapp’s home that they announced themselves as cops. However, when they got to Sapp’s bedroom, they admit that they did not announce themselves and she was still sleeping. She had no idea they were police.
“We’re yelling at her to, you know, let us see your hands, let us see your hands,” Marcum said.
Because the innocent woman who was just shaken out of sleep by heavily armed strangers in her bedroom, did not immediately begin to prostrate herself at the feet of her home invaders, force was escalated.
“I didn’t have my glasses on, I’m legally blind,” Sapp said. “I couldn’t identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me.”
“At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us,” Marcum told investigators.
Sapp disputes the notion that she ever pointed a gun. She says that had she actually pointed a gun, she would be dead because more than one of the cops would’ve fired their guns.
“If I had been pointing my gun, the way they said that I was, why didn’t they all shoot me, instead of just one person?” Sapp asked. Indeed, as TFTP has reported on a regular basis, cops are more than willing to shoot someone for merely reaching for areas where there may be a gun. If you actually point a gun at a cop, especially four of them, rest assured, you are going to be filled with holes immediately.
Instead of shooting her, one cop deployed his taser. Marcum, apparently scared of his own shadow then did what the other officers in the room never felt necessary: he pulled out his gun and put a bullet into Sapp.
This innocent woman, who had harmed no one, was asleep in her own bedroom, and did nothing wrong, was then shot in the shoulder and arrested.
“It doesn’t make any sense that they would come in that way unless they were lied to by somebody that was using this well-being check as a tool to put me in harm’s way,” Sapp said. “To process that has been really, really difficult. It’s something that could happen to anyone.”
Despite the fact that not a single cop was injured, and the fact that Sapp never fired of a round, and the fact that she was the one who was shot, this woman was arrested and charged with the following felonies:
Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm Att. First Degree Murder Of Leo W/firearm Agg. Assault On A Leo (w/ A Deadly Weapon) Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon Resisting Officer With Violence
Sapp, whose trial begins this month, now faces the possibility of life behind bars for attempting to defend herself against multiple armed home invaders who happened to wear badges. All of this, of course, was carried out for her own safety.
The incident didn't happen outside. Because it is light outside doesn't say how much light was on the inside.
Officers responded at 8:27 a.m. Sapp did not say it was dark. Agorist wrote, "On the night in question...." It was the day in question, and the light in the room is not clearly established.
The information in the article relates that it was light enough for a legally blind person to make out shadowy figures standing in the room.
“I didn’t have my glasses on, I’m legally blind,” Sapp said. “I couldn’t identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me.”
“At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us,” Marcum told investigators.
- - - - - - - - - -
Sapp disputes the notion that she ever pointed a gun. She says that had she actually pointed a gun, she would be dead because more than one of the cops would’ve fired their guns.
One shot to the right shoulder and she was not pointing a gun.
She is allegedly legally blind. She was allegedly brandishing a gun and could not see what she was aiming it at. That can get a legally blind person in trouble should he or she go into the woods unaccompanied to hunt. In general, blind people are required to be accompanied; to have a non-hunting partner as a seeing guide.
Blind people may be licensed to own guns, but they are not relieved of the responsibility of knowing what they are aiming at. She was aiming at cops in uniform, with badges, perhaps unaware of their being cops due her poor vision. Her poor vision would be an explanation, perhaps a mitigating factor, but not an excuse.
A jury can decide whether she was justified in aiming a gun in self-defense, where her poor vision prevented her from knowing what she was aiming at.
Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.
Another factor to consider is that the officers were almost certainly shouting some form of command, and there is no evidence that Sapp is deaf.
Blind people may be licensed to own guns, but they are not relieved of the responsibility of knowing what they are aiming at. She was aiming at cops in uniform, with badges, perhaps unaware of their being cops due her poor vision. Her poor vision would be an explanation, perhaps a mitigating factor, but not an excuse.
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger. To be consistent in applying laws equally to all, civilians must be afforded the same legal consideration. There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.
Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.
That's not a question in this case as the cops are not on trial. But certainly standing precedent will state that the police shooting her was justified. If she is found not guilty of any crime related to the shooting, this question may come up in a civil court context should she decide to sue the police.
A shooting takes place where no threat existed does not necessarily require that a finding of criminal guilt occurred on the party that fired the shot, even if it results in injury or death. This is most often the case when cops shoot civilians but has occurred in extremely rare cases, at least one where a civilian shot and killed a cop during a home raid. It was deemed justified as the homeowner had no reasonable basis for knowing that police were invading his home.
Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.
Another factor to consider is that the officers were almost certainly shouting some form of command, and there is no evidence that Sapp is deaf.
Shouting commands wouldn't necessarily include identifying themselves, and again, doing so to a person who is in the process of awakening and who is legally blind creates an extremely dubious certainty in the person who was just awakened, particularly when that person is a woman living alone, awakened by 3 men whom she she does not know and who entered her home uninvited and without her knowledge.
By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense that is routinely afforded police. Failing to afford that standard in this case is a clear violation of failure to apply that law equally to all persons.
So you're saying she had someone in bed with her to help her point the gun?
You may also consider the hunting example consideration that she needs a seeing guide not only to see her target, but to see further in the distance, behind her target, to shoot safely and not hit an unintended person. What will the bullet hit if it just misses, or cleanly passes through the intended target?
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....
Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?
There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.
Then she can plead self-defense. A problem may be that she failed to respond to verbal commands.
Another question would be, if she were justified in aiming her gun at unidentified shadows in her room, were the shadowy cops justified in shooting her in the shoulder? A finding that she was justified would not establish that the cops were not justified.
That's not a question in this case as the cops are not on trial. But certainly standing precedent will state that the police shooting her was justified. If she is found not guilty of any crime related to the shooting, this question may come up in a civil court context should she decide to sue the police.
It is a question of whether or not charges are filed against the police. The police had a gun aimed at them. One of them shot the subject in the shoulder and removed the threat. The responding officers are not responsible for the content of the report to which they responded. If the caller reported false information, he could be liable for a felony. Had she died, he could have been liable for felony murder.
She cannot sue the police, or the police department. She can try to sue Winter Haven, or her ex who called in the report, and showed the cops how to effect entry.
Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.
Up to the point where they scream their commands and make it known that they are cops.
Shouting commands wouldn't necessarily include identifying themselves....
Winter Park police Sgt. Garvin McComey said officers tried to talk with the woman, who started pointing a gun at one officer. Officers tried to subdue the woman with a Taser, but she continued to point the weapon, police said.
The officer shot her in the right shoulder after she did not respond to several commands to put the gun down, he said.
- - - - - - - - - -
A shooting takes place where no threat existed....
The cops reported to a scene of a subject who allegedly threatened suicide by cop.
The subject pulled a gun and aimed it at the cops.
You hypothetical has no basis.
By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense....
A court can decide that. Self-defense is an available defense, not a get out of jail free card. She must justify aiming a gun at uniformed cops whom she was unable to identify due to her impaired vision. She must justify not putting on her glasses in order to identify her targets before aiming a gun at them.
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....
Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?
You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.
There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.
Then she can plead self-defense. A problem may be that she failed to respond to verbal commands.
Her first defense is that she never aimed a gun at them at all. The claim by police that she did is in dispute. But assuming she did, I believe she does have a legitimate self defense claim.
Being awakened from sleep in one's own home by police would seem to be a qualifying case of this woman having no reasonable basis for knowing police were present.
Up to the point where they scream their commands and make it known that they are cops.
So she is obligated to accept the word of strange men in her bedroom that they are cops. Men she cannot she clearly? This is not about who they were, but whether her armed reaction, if it was indeed an armed reaction, was reasonable given her state of mind being freshly awakened and what facts she could be certain of in this state of mind, facts that go beyond who these men were claiming to be.
By any fair standard, she had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense....
A court can decide that. Self-defense is an available defense, not a get out of jail free card. She must justify aiming a gun at uniformed cops whom she was unable to identify due to her impaired vision. She must justify not putting on her glasses in order to identify her targets before aiming a gun at them.
As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent, she is legally obligated to put on her glasses before taking defensive measures *just in case* the men in her bedroom are cops...
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all....
Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?
You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.
No, you started your comments with inapplicable blather. I pointed out the inappropriateness of your deliberately skewed context. The instant case does not concern a case where the subject posed no threat at all.
Her first defense is that she never aimed a gun at them at all. The claim by police that she did is in dispute.
Three cops against one lady with two guns in her bed. The defense that the cops shot her for no reason at all will be as persuasive as the dindu defense.
But assuming she did, I believe she does have a legitimate self defense claim.
The judicial branch can sort that out with a full set of facts to judge on.
As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent, she is legally obligated to put on her glasses before taking defensive measures *just in case* the men in her bedroom are cops...
She will be required to justify why she picked up a gun and aimed it at uniformed cops whom she could not identify as such because she is legally blind. Being blind and unable to see and identify one’s intended target does not make it lawful to aim a gun and what one cannot clearly see or identify.
I will wait for the trial and accept whatever they find.
As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent....
Here you go again. That is pure, absolute bullshit. There is no evidence whatever that the responding officers invaded anything, nor that they had any criminal intent. To the contrary, there is evidence that they responded appropriately to the report that they were given.
Are you seriously arguing that Bobbie Sapp aiming a firearm at the police “posed no threat at all”?
You have clearly, knowingly and intentionally taken my comment out of context.
No, you started your comments with inapplicable blather. I pointed out the inappropriateness of your deliberately skewed context. The instant case does not concern a case where the subject posed no threat at all.
Try reading my full statement. I was comparing the "fear for my life" defense routinely invoked by police for when they shoot people even when no threat exists, with this case where a woman is accused of acting proactively to defend her person. My point, which you are negligently refusing to acknowledge, is that this "fear for my life" defense is not one that can lawfully be available ONLY to police, and that this fear is already well established to mean what the person in fear was knowledgable of, which may differ from the actual facts at the time.
A cop shooting a man getting out of his car because he held his wallet with both hands was deemed justified because of the fear the cop felt regardless of the fact that there was zero danger. The facts on the scene don't matter. What is in the mind of the person with the gun does matter.
Now perhaps you yourself just got out of bed and were not fully cognizant of my entire comment: It follows:
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger. To be consistent in applying laws equally to all, civilians must be afforded the same legal consideration. There is little question that this woman had a legitimate "fear for my life" defense when she was awakened by 3 men in her bedroom.
....
She will be required to justify why she picked up a gun and aimed it at uniformed cops whom she could not identify as such because she is legally blind. Being blind and unable to see and identify one’s intended target does not make it lawful to aim a gun and what one cannot clearly see or identify.
Being in her own bedroom, in her own house, awakened by 3 male strangers that were uninvited sure sounds like a fully justified and legitimate "fear for my life" defense to me, and taking aim at them, as best she could until such time as she is satisfied that no danger exists, sure sounds like a legitimate defense to me.
As though in an in-home invasion in her bedroom by those with criminal intent....
Here you go again. That is pure, absolute bullshit. There is no evidence whatever that the responding officers invaded anything, nor that they had any criminal intent. To the contrary, there is evidence that they responded appropriately to the report that they were given.
You again miss my point, negligently or willingly. My point was: What if this woman WAS being invaded by someone with criminal intent, like her ex-boyfriend? Your stated position is that if instead of cops these 3 men were thugs there to rape and murder her, she would be legally prohibited from aiming her gun at them until after she puts her glasses on.
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their perception of danger.
Your false predicate is still false.
Let me help a brother out:
Cops are routinely excused from shooting civilians that posed no threat at all based purely on their reasonable perception of danger.
What if this woman WAS being invaded by someone with criminal intent, like her ex-boyfriend?
I could have been Attila the Hun, and two of his henchmen. You support the right of a blind woman to pick up a gun and aim it at an unidentified target because she cannot see well enough to identify cops in full uniform.
The right to defend oneself does not grant the right to break the law in so doing. Recall the Arkansas lady, barred from possessing a gun because of a prior, picking up a gun in justified self-defense. She was busted for unlawful possession of a firearm.
She is going to have to defend that she picked up a gun and aimed it at an unidentified person who was a cop in full uniform. If a fully sighted person couldn’t do it, what provision in law permits a blind person to do it?
When she aimed her gun at the cop, the cop was certainly justified in perceiving a deadly threat, and fully justified in shooting her.
She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not. In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.
She can always hope for an anarcho-libertarian judge and jury.
That is a death sentence.
A blind woman challenging three armed cops to a gunfight is as close as she is going to get to a death sentence. Especially if she has been reported to have been threatening to commit suicide by cop.
She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not. In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.
If someone is in your house and they are not supposed to be there. You live alone like she apparetly did because her boyfriend wasn't with her anymore. That means anyone in her house would be there without her permission and she could legitimately think it is a threat and kill them in self defense.
The cops could think their life was in danger too. But they didn't get a search warrant. They were wrong coming in someones home without a warrant.
I could have been Attila the Hun, and two of his henchmen. You support the right of a blind woman to pick up a gun and aim it at an unidentified target because she cannot see well enough to identify cops in full uniform.
Let me help you out by appending:
.... in her own home, in her bedroom. Yes, because she has a reasonable expectation of security within her own home. I suppose you don't believe people have any such reasonable expectation of security within their home. Fine.
She had no way of knowing if she faced a deadly threat or not.
The cop who shot a guy holding a wallet ALSO had no way of knowing whether he faced a deadly threat or not. Apparently his blindness to what that man was holding in full view in open daylight WAS deemed as acceptable ignorance to the fact that there was no danger.
In picking up the gun, she faced a deadly threat of her own making. She could reasonably fear the unknown, but she is going to have to sell to a jury that she had a right to aim her gun at the unknown.
She faced a deadly threat no less so than the cop who shot a guy with a wallet. In fact, more so given it happened in her own bedroom.
That is a death sentence.
A blind woman challenging three armed cops to a gunfight is as close as she is going to get to a death sentence. Especially if she has been reported to have been threatening to commit suicide by cop.
You refuse to read. You refuse to grant the same "fear for my life" standard to a blind woman in her own bedroom as you accept for a cop in open daylight on the street.
Admit you have a double standard and I'll consider the conversation closed.
People also ask What is the definition of legally blind? If you're completely blind, you can't see any light or form. ... If you're legally blind, your vision is 20/200 or less. That means if an object is 200 feet away, you have to stand 20 feet from it in order to see it clearly. But a person with normal vision can stand 200 feet away and see that object perfectly.Nov 15, 2017
I expect the definition you cite is correct, but the important thing is that "legally blind" does not mean absolutely blind. 20/200 means that one can make out detail at 20 feet that a person with (what is considered) normal vision can make out at 200 feet. That does not mean, of course, that a person with 20/200 vision sees people 20 feet away as though they were 200 feet away. They could still make out shapes and be able to tell the approximate distance away they are, and such a person may very well be able to see and shoot effectively put a bullet into a perceived moving blob.
If this woman is not legally blind then I would expect the state to argue that with whatever evidence they possess. I am going on the presumption she is telling the truth and that the state will not contest the claim. The only fact I am aware of that is in dispute is whether she pointed a gun at the police. She claimed she did not, the cops claim she did. There are no body cams in this case.
Are we loosing track of the fact that these guys invaded her house, with no probable cause, only a pretext provided by her ex-boyfriend? They shouldn't have been within the premises in the first place, and even if one is willing to grant them that power, they should have erred on the side of caution, especially finding her alive and obviously not a threat to herself or anyone else. Good Lord, they should have backed off immediately upon finding her asleep in her bed, and very gently called for her attention from a safe distance (outside her bedroom).
It looks like this is just a game to you. You've got nothing better to do with your life than to bait people into arguments that you have no intention of honestly engaging.
Good Lord, they should have backed off immediately upon finding her asleep in her bed, and very gently called for her attention from a safe distance (outside her bedroom).
Giving this "suicide-by-cop" crazed woman time to arm herself and start shooting?
What will the bullet hit if it just misses, or cleanly passes through the intended target?
Who cares? No one is supposed to be in her bedroom -- not family, friends, neighbors, police -- so it's a free-fire zone. This is what her bedroom looks like at night when she hears a noise:
A welfare check, also known as a wellness check, occurs when law enforcement officers respond to a request to check on the safety and well-being of a person. These situations typically arise when an individual is having a hard time getting ahold of a family member, friend, or neighbor and they believe something is wrong with the person. The most common type of welfare check is checking on an elderly person. However, welfare checks can be utilized for a wide variety of reasons, including but not limited to, potential suicide, drug overdose, and child endangerment.
In order to request a welfare check, an individual must first get in contact with law enforcement, whether that be through 911 or a non-emergency number. Prior to contacting law enforcement, an individual must be certain that the person they are concerned about is in danger. If the individual lives in the same area as the person they are concerned about, he or she may accompany authorities to that person’s residence. Additionally, no court order is required for police to conduct a welfare check. As long as the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, they can legally enter the premises. Law enforcement is given this power under the Community Caretaking Doctrine, a judicially created exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.
Who cares? No one is supposed to be in her bedroom -- not family, friends, neighbors, police -- so it's a free-fire zone.
Well, there’s that. And curiosly the name of the individual claimed to be the boyfriend or ex-boyfriend appears better protected than Eric Chiaramella.
Were the ex-boyfriend’s report to police have been false, he could have been criminally or civilly liable. Using the google, I have not found his name, or any mention of a criminal or civil case.
And there is the natural law right of legally blind people to aim guns at blobs. Denying this right to sighted people who can see what they aim their weapon at is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Everybody’s bedroom should be a free zone. /sarc (for the benefit of aging juveniles)
But then there is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with not search warrant or court order required.
And the Bobbie Sapp hearing in Orange County Court scheduled for 13 January 2020 has been cancelled.
Orange County Court Hearing Calendar
Case number: 2017-CF-012052-A-O Hearing date: 01/13/2020 9:00 AM Time slot: Room 9-a On The 9th Floor Location: State Of Florida - Vs - Sapp, Bobbie Fischer Judge: Roche, Renee A Status: Cancelled
Are we loosing track of the fact that these guys invaded her house, with no probable cause
But then there is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with no search warrant or court order required.
But stalker ex-boyfriends who skulk around a former girlfriend's house seeking to get her harmed...you accept those.
I do not accept your geriatric juvenile brainfarts revising the law. Your predicate is bullshit.
There is the Community Caretaking Doctrine under which police receiving a call for a welfare check, and having reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence is endangered, can legally enter the premises with no search warrant or court order required.
.... in her own home, in her bedroom. Yes, because she has a reasonable expectation of security within her own home. I suppose you don't believe people have any such reasonable expectation of security within their home. Fine.
You can’t help yourself, let alone me.
You still do not know what the hell you are talking about and you are just spewing juvenile bullshit that you should have outgrown by now. Let the Office of the State Attorney of Florida help yourself out.
Published by: Office of the State Attorney West Palm Beach, FL 33401 B. Krischer, Editor
[Extract]
Community Caretaking: The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.’” Florida v. Jardines, (2013).
While it is a basic principle of the Fourth Amendment that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it follows that the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception applies when police officers engage in community caretaking function. Cady v. Dombrowski, (S.Ct. 1973). The Supreme Court has long described the “community caretaking functions” of law enforcement as activities that are ‘"totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Community caretaking functions are performed by law enforcement to “help those in danger.” “A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” The “reasonable belief” required under the community caretaker doctrine “is a less exacting standard than probable cause.”
A search or seizure under the community caretaking function is reasonable if the governmental interest in law enforcement’s exercise of that function, based on specific and articulable facts, outweighs the individual’s interest in freedom from government intrusion. “Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.” Eastes v. State, (5DCA 2007).
Court's Ruling:
The Court of Appeals, after listing the factors known to the officers, easily found their entry into defendant’s home without a warrant lawful.
“The specific, articulable facts known to the officers at the time they entered the residence include the following facts, based on [Reporter’s] calls and information from dispatch. Wallace left the halfway house and had not returned by 5:00 p.m., the time she indicated she would return. [Reporter] stated during her first call to 911 that Smith may be holding Wallace at his home against her will. [Reporter] also provided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them. The officers further learned from dispatch that other officers were unable to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ... [Reporter] report that she was ‘sure’ Smith was armed. ... Further, only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door. Wallace had not responded to any phone calls or text messages since she left the half-way house, which was over three hours prior to the time the officers entered Smith’s residence. Finally, [Officer] noticed a person’s face at the back window of Smith’s home after Smith told officers Wallace was not at his home.”
“We are satisfied that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered Smith’s residence. The circumstances resemble those in Harris and Quezada, in which officers responded to potential emergency situations to aid members of the community. See United States v. Harris, (8th Cir.2014) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officers responded to a call that a gun was sliding out of the pocket of a sleeping individual at a bus station); United States v. Quezada, (8th Cir.2006) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officer encountered an emergency situation while serving a child protection order). The officers in the present case received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another community member. On the scene, the officers learned further details indicating serious concern for Wallace’s safety and establishing multiple reasons why she would be at Smith’s residence and held against her will or in danger.”
“We must next weigh the government’s interests in the officers’ entry against Smith’s right to be free from government intrusion. Smith contends that following his arrest, any emergency situation that the police officers may have believed existed inside the residence was extinguished... Here, the officers did not enter Smith’s residence as a protective sweep. As far as the officers reasonably knew at the time, Wallace could have been incapacitated within the residence in any number of ways that would prevent her from emerging from the residence following Smith’s arrest. Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone since leaving the halfway house further suggested that she was unable to respond. The fact that officers saw a face in the window undermined Smith’s claim that he was the only person in the home at the time and a reasonable officer on the scene could believe the person seen in the window required their assistance. The justification for the officers’ entry arises from their obligation to help those in danger and ensure the safety of the public. ...We agree and conclude that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering Smith’s residence to search for Wallace.”
“Further, we conclude the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The officers entered Smith’s residence for the purpose of locating Wallace. They first announced their presence at the entrance of the home but received no response. Within thirty seconds, Wallace called out and indicated she was ‘in the bedroom.’ The officers went to the bedroom and began speaking with Wallace there. Smith does not argue the officers ventured beyond the bedroom once inside his home. The firearm at issue in this case was lying on the bed in the bedroom where Wallace was located. It was only partially covered by a bed sheet. The plain view doctrine therefore applies. ...Because the officers had a lawful basis for entering Smith’s apartment under their function as community caretakers, the firearm lying on the bed in the room in which Wallace was found is admissible under the plain view doctrine.
AFFIRMED.”
Lessons Learned:
Community Caretaking is a powerful exception to the warrant requirement, but its application will be dependent on how the offense report is worded. Keep in mind that the basis for this warrant exception is that the police action is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." If applicable the report should be worded accordingly.
As noted in a case where an officer finds a motorist unresponsive in a vehicle, in the early morning hours, parked at a strip mall that was closed for the night. The court stated, “Based on the deputy’s concern for Dermio’s safety the fact that Dermio was unresponsive to the deputy’s attempts to communicate with him, we hold that no unreasonable search or seizure occurred prior to the deputy opening the car door and smelling marijuana. The deputy was merely conducting a welfare check and that conduct did not violate constitutional principles." Dermio v. State, (2DCA 2013).
Most community caretaking situations will arise from a 911 call for assistance. “A 911 call is a cry to the authorities for help. And until the investigating officer is reasonably satisfied that no emergency exists, he is within his legal duty to investigate such calls in a manner consistent with their emergency nature.”
“Indeed it is obvious that had the patrolmen been denied entry to the apartment they would have had the right, if not the duty, to gain entry forcibly.” In the Interest of J.B., (4DCA 1993).
Lastly, in those instances where the officers respond to an apparent domestic violence call for help, and the perpetrator stands at the door asserting his constitutional rights and demanding a search warrant prior to police entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had this to say in Georgia v. Randolph, (2006): “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort [a civil wrong] by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected... ”
Admit you have a double standard and I'll consider the conversation closed.
Just admit you don’t know what the hell you are talking about, as usual when it comes to the law, Mr. LWAN.
It happened 8 a.m. on a Sunday in September 2017. While Sapp was fast asleep in the Winter Park home she rented, her ex-boyfriend was calling Winter Park police.
"My girlfriend was threatening suicide last night, I just came to the house and trying to get in," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator.
It was a five minute, 34 second call that Sapp said changed her life.
"She is very well armed," Sapp's ex-boyfriend told the 911 operator when asked if Sapp had a gun.
"She's threatened suicide by cop before," he said.
"I was asleep in my bed. I was not at all contemplating a suicide or suicide by cop," Sapp told News 6.
When police arrived, Sapp's ex showed them how to enter the house, according to an interview with officer Jeff Marcum obtained by News 6.
"There’s one way into the house to crawl through a window and I don't want to do that at this point. I want someone here with me," Sapp's ex-boyfriend said during the call.
One officer lifted a kitchen window, leaned in and used a clothing hanger to unlock the back door, according to police.
Meanwhile, Marcum was still getting information from Sapp's ex.
"I'm asking if there's any weapons in the house, he tells me there's enough weapons in the house to start a revolution," Marcum said.
Then the three officers made their way into the house, through the living room, and finally to Sapp's bedroom where they see her sleeping.
"I'm thinking about the call suicide by cop," Marcum says during the interview.
Marcum, a 23-year-veteran with the Winter Park Police Department, describes in an interview with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement what happened next.
"We're yelling at her to, you know, let us see your hands, let us see your hands," Marcum said.
"I didn't have my glasses on, I'm legally blind," Sapp said. "I couldn't identify anybody, but I remember there being shadows figures standing in my room. They pulled the covers off me."
"At that point when she pulled the cover, Ms. Sapp immediately came up with a handgun and pointed it right at us," Marcum told investigators.
Sapp admits she slept with two guns. She and her ex had been in a fight the night before and she feared it was him coming back to the house, she said.
She says she had taken a sleeping pill the night before but says she did not point a gun at the officers.
"Then I remember getting tazed, " Sapp said.
Marcum said when Sapp wouldn't comply, one officer tazed her.
"She still pointed the gun at us, then comes back toward me and then goes back toward Lt. Bologna and Officer Eller and I fired a round," he said.
Sapp was shot in the shoulder.
Looks like there was a pre-trial confinement hearing on 10/8/2019
They were not there to search for evidence of a crime.
Doesn't matter. The constitution says NO searches unless an oath was sworn.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
She had a right to be secure in her house. They weren't allowed to enter constitutionally. But you know that if you are honest. The text means what it says. Not what some black robed asshole lies about. I know they can do what they want because we live under COLOR OF LAW. It penalizes you like real law but it isn't legitimate because it violates the Constitution. No doubt about it. None. Nada. Zero. Zip.
She's blind for the purpose of gaining sympathy, but only "legally-blind-and- able-to-use-a-gun" to justify her actions.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Your fruit stinks. It lies. It deceives. It ignores the constitution and the clear words. It is people like you that make ignoring the constitution possible. People who can't think like you for example are the problem. Not the whole problem but a large part of it.
Published by: Office of the State Attorney West Palm Beach, FL 33401 B. Krischer, Editor
[Extract]
Community Caretaking: The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.’” Florida v. Jardines, (2013).
While it is a basic principle of the Fourth Amendment that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it follows that the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception applies when police officers engage in community caretaking function. Cady v. Dombrowski, (S.Ct. 1973). The Supreme Court has long described the “community caretaking functions” of law enforcement as activities that are ‘"totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Community caretaking functions are performed by law enforcement to “help those in danger.” “A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” The “reasonable belief” required under the community caretaker doctrine “is a less exacting standard than probable cause.”
A search or seizure under the community caretaking function is reasonable if the governmental interest in law enforcement’s exercise of that function, based on specific and articulable facts, outweighs the individual’s interest in freedom from government intrusion. “Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.” Eastes v. State, (5DCA 2007).
Court's Ruling:
The Court of Appeals, after listing the factors known to the officers, easily found their entry into defendant’s home without a warrant lawful.
“The specific, articulable facts known to the officers at the time they entered the residence include the following facts, based on [Reporter’s] calls and information from dispatch. Wallace left the halfway house and had not returned by 5:00 p.m., the time she indicated she would return. [Reporter] stated during her first call to 911 that Smith may be holding Wallace at his home against her will. [Reporter] also provided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them. The officers further learned from dispatch that other officers were unable to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ... [Reporter] report that she was ‘sure’ Smith was armed. ... Further, only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door. Wallace had not responded to any phone calls or text messages since she left the half-way house, which was over three hours prior to the time the officers entered Smith’s residence. Finally, [Officer] noticed a person’s face at the back window of Smith’s home after Smith told officers Wallace was not at his home.”
“We are satisfied that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered Smith’s residence. The circumstances resemble those in Harris and Quezada, in which officers responded to potential emergency situations to aid members of the community. See United States v. Harris, (8th Cir.2014) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officers responded to a call that a gun was sliding out of the pocket of a sleeping individual at a bus station); United States v. Quezada, (8th Cir.2006) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officer encountered an emergency situation while serving a child protection order). The officers in the present case received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another community member. On the scene, the officers learned further details indicating serious concern for Wallace’s safety and establishing multiple reasons why she would be at Smith’s residence and held against her will or in danger.”
“We must next weigh the government’s interests in the officers’ entry against Smith’s right to be free from government intrusion. Smith contends that following his arrest, any emergency situation that the police officers may have believed existed inside the residence was extinguished... Here, the officers did not enter Smith’s residence as a protective sweep. As far as the officers reasonably knew at the time, Wallace could have been incapacitated within the residence in any number of ways that would prevent her from emerging from the residence following Smith’s arrest. Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone since leaving the halfway house further suggested that she was unable to respond. The fact that officers saw a face in the window undermined Smith’s claim that he was the only person in the home at the time and a reasonable officer on the scene could believe the person seen in the window required their assistance. The justification for the officers’ entry arises from their obligation to help those in danger and ensure the safety of the public. ...We agree and conclude that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering Smith’s residence to search for Wallace.”
“Further, we conclude the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The officers entered Smith’s residence for the purpose of locating Wallace. They first announced their presence at the entrance of the home but received no response. Within thirty seconds, Wallace called out and indicated she was ‘in the bedroom.’ The officers went to the bedroom and began speaking with Wallace there. Smith does not argue the officers ventured beyond the bedroom once inside his home. The firearm at issue in this case was lying on the bed in the bedroom where Wallace was located. It was only partially covered by a bed sheet. The plain view doctrine therefore applies. ...Because the officers had a lawful basis for entering Smith’s apartment under their function as community caretakers, the firearm lying on the bed in the room in which Wallace was found is admissible under the plain view doctrine.
AFFIRMED.”
Lessons Learned:
Community Caretaking is a powerful exception to the warrant requirement, but its application will be dependent on how the offense report is worded. Keep in mind that the basis for this warrant exception is that the police action is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." If applicable the report should be worded accordingly.
As noted in a case where an officer finds a motorist unresponsive in a vehicle, in the early morning hours, parked at a strip mall that was closed for the night. The court stated, “Based on the deputy’s concern for Dermio’s safety the fact that Dermio was unresponsive to the deputy’s attempts to communicate with him, we hold that no unreasonable search or seizure occurred prior to the deputy opening the car door and smelling marijuana. The deputy was merely conducting a welfare check and that conduct did not violate constitutional principles." Dermio v. State, (2DCA 2013).
Most community caretaking situations will arise from a 911 call for assistance. “A 911 call is a cry to the authorities for help. And until the investigating officer is reasonably satisfied that no emergency exists, he is within his legal duty to investigate such calls in a manner consistent with their emergency nature.”
“Indeed it is obvious that had the patrolmen been denied entry to the apartment they would have had the right, if not the duty, to gain entry forcibly.” In the Interest of J.B., (4DCA 1993).
Lastly, in those instances where the officers respond to an apparent domestic violence call for help, and the perpetrator stands at the door asserting his constitutional rights and demanding a search warrant prior to police entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had this to say in Georgia v. Randolph, (2006): “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort [a civil wrong] by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected... ”
The constitution says NO searches unless an oath was sworn.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
She had a right to be secure in her house. They weren't allowed to enter constitutionally. But you know that if you are honest. The text means what it says. Not what some black robed asshole lies about. I know they can do what they want because we live under COLOR OF LAW. It penalizes you like real law but it isn't legitimate because it violates the Constitution. No doubt about it. None. Nada. Zero. Zip.
Published by: Office of the State Attorney West Palm Beach, FL 33401 B. Krischer, Editor
[Extract]
Community Caretaking: The Fourth Amendment provides, in relevant part, “the right of the people to be secure in their . . . houses . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” “At the Amendment’s ‘very core’ stands ‘the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.’” Florida v. Jardines, (2013).
While it is a basic principle of the Fourth Amendment that warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable, the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” and it follows that the warrant requirement is subject to certain exceptions. One such exception applies when police officers engage in community caretaking function. Cady v. Dombrowski, (S.Ct. 1973). The Supreme Court has long described the “community caretaking functions” of law enforcement as activities that are ‘"totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Community caretaking functions are performed by law enforcement to “help those in danger.” “A police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.” The “reasonable belief” required under the community caretaker doctrine “is a less exacting standard than probable cause.”
A search or seizure under the community caretaking function is reasonable if the governmental interest in law enforcement’s exercise of that function, based on specific and articulable facts, outweighs the individual’s interest in freedom from government intrusion. “Our decisions therefore confirm that authorities may enter a private dwelling based on a reasonable fear of a medical emergency. In those limited circumstances, the sanctity of human life becomes more important than the sanctity of the home.” Eastes v. State, (5DCA 2007).
Court's Ruling:
The Court of Appeals, after listing the factors known to the officers, easily found their entry into defendant’s home without a warrant lawful.
“The specific, articulable facts known to the officers at the time they entered the residence include the following facts, based on [Reporter’s] calls and information from dispatch. Wallace left the halfway house and had not returned by 5:00 p.m., the time she indicated she would return. [Reporter] stated during her first call to 911 that Smith may be holding Wallace at his home against her will. [Reporter] also provided background information on Smith and Wallace’s previous dating relationship, including the existence of a no-contact order between them. The officers further learned from dispatch that other officers were unable to locate Wallace at a number of other locations. ... [Reporter] report that she was ‘sure’ Smith was armed. ... Further, only Smith responded to the officer’s initial knock on the door. Wallace had not responded to any phone calls or text messages since she left the half-way house, which was over three hours prior to the time the officers entered Smith’s residence. Finally, [Officer] noticed a person’s face at the back window of Smith’s home after Smith told officers Wallace was not at his home.”
“We are satisfied that the officers acted in their community caretaking function when they entered Smith’s residence. The circumstances resemble those in Harris and Quezada, in which officers responded to potential emergency situations to aid members of the community. See United States v. Harris, (8th Cir.2014) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officers responded to a call that a gun was sliding out of the pocket of a sleeping individual at a bus station); United States v. Quezada, (8th Cir.2006) (holding that community caretaker doctrine applied when officer encountered an emergency situation while serving a child protection order). The officers in the present case received a call from a concerned member of the community regarding the safety of another community member. On the scene, the officers learned further details indicating serious concern for Wallace’s safety and establishing multiple reasons why she would be at Smith’s residence and held against her will or in danger.”
“We must next weigh the government’s interests in the officers’ entry against Smith’s right to be free from government intrusion. Smith contends that following his arrest, any emergency situation that the police officers may have believed existed inside the residence was extinguished... Here, the officers did not enter Smith’s residence as a protective sweep. As far as the officers reasonably knew at the time, Wallace could have been incapacitated within the residence in any number of ways that would prevent her from emerging from the residence following Smith’s arrest. Wallace’s lack of response to any calls or messages on her cell phone since leaving the halfway house further suggested that she was unable to respond. The fact that officers saw a face in the window undermined Smith’s claim that he was the only person in the home at the time and a reasonable officer on the scene could believe the person seen in the window required their assistance. The justification for the officers’ entry arises from their obligation to help those in danger and ensure the safety of the public. ...We agree and conclude that the officers reasonably believed an emergency situation existed that required their immediate attention in the form of entering Smith’s residence to search for Wallace.”
“Further, we conclude the scope of the encounter was carefully tailored to satisfy the purpose. The officers entered Smith’s residence for the purpose of locating Wallace. They first announced their presence at the entrance of the home but received no response. Within thirty seconds, Wallace called out and indicated she was ‘in the bedroom.’ The officers went to the bedroom and began speaking with Wallace there. Smith does not argue the officers ventured beyond the bedroom once inside his home. The firearm at issue in this case was lying on the bed in the bedroom where Wallace was located. It was only partially covered by a bed sheet. The plain view doctrine therefore applies. ...Because the officers had a lawful basis for entering Smith’s apartment under their function as community caretakers, the firearm lying on the bed in the room in which Wallace was found is admissible under the plain view doctrine.
AFFIRMED.”
Lessons Learned:
Community Caretaking is a powerful exception to the warrant requirement, but its application will be dependent on how the offense report is worded. Keep in mind that the basis for this warrant exception is that the police action is "totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." If applicable the report should be worded accordingly.
As noted in a case where an officer finds a motorist unresponsive in a vehicle, in the early morning hours, parked at a strip mall that was closed for the night. The court stated, “Based on the deputy’s concern for Dermio’s safety the fact that Dermio was unresponsive to the deputy’s attempts to communicate with him, we hold that no unreasonable search or seizure occurred prior to the deputy opening the car door and smelling marijuana. The deputy was merely conducting a welfare check and that conduct did not violate constitutional principles." Dermio v. State, (2DCA 2013).
Most community caretaking situations will arise from a 911 call for assistance. “A 911 call is a cry to the authorities for help. And until the investigating officer is reasonably satisfied that no emergency exists, he is within his legal duty to investigate such calls in a manner consistent with their emergency nature.”
“Indeed it is obvious that had the patrolmen been denied entry to the apartment they would have had the right, if not the duty, to gain entry forcibly.” In the Interest of J.B., (4DCA 1993).
Lastly, in those instances where the officers respond to an apparent domestic violence call for help, and the perpetrator stands at the door asserting his constitutional rights and demanding a search warrant prior to police entry, the U.S. Supreme Court had this to say in Georgia v. Randolph, (2006): “No question has been raised, or reasonably could be, about the authority of the police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence; so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists, it would be silly to suggest that the police would commit a tort [a civil wrong] by entering, say, to give a complaining tenant the opportunity to collect belongings and get out safely, or to determine whether violence (or threat of violence) has just occurred or is about to (or soon will) occur, however much a spouse or other co-tenant objected... ”
