Warrantless arrest justified by standoff
By:
Sylvia Hsieh
Published: March 16, 2009
Tags: Sect. 1983
Police need not obtain an arrest warrant before taking a suspect into custody after a 12-hour armed standoff, even though exigent circumstances may have dissipated, the en banc 9th Circuit has ruled.
The defendant was in his home when he pointed a gun at a security guard investigating loud music in another apartment. When police arrived, he was visibly drunk, belligerent and threatened to shoot police if he came on or near his property.
After a 12-hour standoff during which the defendant retreated into his apartment for several hours, the police arrested him.
He sued under §1983, claiming that the police should have obtained a warrant because the exigency had dissipated by the time they arrested him.
A U.S. District Court and the 9th Circuit agreed.
But the en banc panel reversed.
“This armed standoff was a single Fourth Amendment event. … [The defendant] threatened the officers shortly after they arrived, and retained full control of his eighteen guns and ammunition until the end. The entire standoff was an uninterrupted, fluid engagement between [him] and the police. … In sum, no event of Fourth Amendment significance occurred that would re-trigger the warrant requirement and compel the police to inquire as to whether exigent circumstances still existed. …
“[S]uggesting that a magistrate should be telling police in the middle of the standoff that they must withdraw or what tactics are permissible does not strike us as a reasonable role for a judicial officer under the Fourth Amendment,” the court said.
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Fisher v. San Jose, No. 04-16095. March 11, 2009. Lawyers USA No. 993-554. Click here for the full text of this opinion.
© Copyright 2012 Lawyers USA. All Rights Reserved.
SUBSCRIBERS: Did you receive the new Lawyers USA Weekly Update in your inbox on Monday?
If not, click here to register and learn more now.
Most Viewed Stories
LEGAL BLOGS
DC Dicta Legal buzz from Washington
FEATURED PODCAST
Baby Boomer lawyers and retirement
Nelson Schwartz from The New York Times recently wrote an article titled, "Easing Out the Gray-Haired. Or Not.," spotlighting the fate of the Baby Boomer generation within law firms. Attorney and co-host Bob Ambrogi welcomes Attorney Valerie C. Samuels, a partner in the firm Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP and co-chair of the Employment Law Group, and Attorney Roy Ginsburg, to take a look at this generation of baby boomers within law firms, retirement, their fate within the firm, options upon retirement and what this means for law firms: big, small and solo.
Click here to listen to the podcast.
Click here to download the podcast.
Click here for the Podcast archive.
![[Print]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/print.png)
![[Email]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/email_2.png)
![[RSS Feed]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/rssfeed.png)
![[del.icio.us]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-content/plugins/dmc_sociable_toolbar/facebook.png)

POST A COMMENT