Judge: Homeowner had "right to resist" officers

[KBCraig]

Now, to throw in my two cents worth on this.

Your two cents are worth more than most folks'.

I had almost the same exact thought process as you, as to what the man knew, and when, and if this was a burglary.

I'm concerned for our countrymen who would wade in with lead flying, bat swinging, rock throwing, or whatever else came to hand when they saw their ladies being treated this way, but who would back off at the first sign of a uniform, thinking, "Oh, that must be okay, then. And if it's not, we'll work everything out in court."

But I really don't understand the judges ruling. Throwing out the charges of obstructing and resisting arrest, I can understand. But if he was justified in using force, he was justified in taking the Taser from the officers after they used it on him and hitting them in the head with it. If he was not justified in taking the Taser, he was not justified in using force. You cannot have it both ways. Either the man should have been cleared of all charges, or he should have been convicted of them all.

I also wondered about that, but this was the sequence of events: the judge tossed five of the six charges (actually, he issued a directed verdict of "not guilty"), and allowed the sixth charge to proceed. At that time, Coffin (acting on the advice of attorneys who planned to urge the judge to sentence him to probation), pleaded nolo contendre. Even the defense attorneys were shocked that the sentence was for the 8 days served; if they'd known, they probably would have stuck with "not guilty" and continued to trial. The attorney mindset was probably, "We got way more than we hoped for, so let's plead 'nolo' and not risk anything else!"

I agree that if he was justified in using force, he was justified in taking the Taser ("law of competing harms", just like speeding and running red lights in a medical emergency). As I said, it's a shame that those 8 days in jail count for a felony conviction.

Kevin

[stevie_d_64]

Could her action be construed as "fleeing"??? Or some semblance of evading???

I know its a stretch, but since it is poorly reported, as I said earlier, she "could" have committed an act against the serving officers, therefore brought on the scuffle or need to be put into custody...For officer safety of course...

I'm really with y'all on this, I'm just thinking this whole situation got out of control, and certainly would not have been unsure what to do to in the heat of the moment...

Something to ponder in the long run I suppose...

[casselthief]

I don't see her as (in the beginning, at least) preventing anything.
she answered the door, said he was in the bathroom, and went and informed her husband of the Deputie's presence.
I believe her obligation was fulfilled at that point.
it was at that point, that she locked doors and closed blinds. I don't see issue with that, as she had fulfilled her obligation to assist.
I mean, was she expected to physically bring forth her husband?

after that, it becomes a cluster bomb, and one in which I will steer clear of.

[txinvestigator]

Now, to throw in my two cents worth on this.

Your two cents are worth more than most folks'.

Especially when he agrees with you.

(Texas Law only)
An unlawful arrest is not an assault, in and of itself. Whether the woman was legally arrested or not, her resisting is illegal. The use of force by the officers to overcome resistance, even to an unlawful arrest, is NOT assault.

The Deputies did not enter the garage to assault the woman. They entered to arrest her, obviously. That is NOT a burglary, and Deadly Force is NEVER justified to resist an arrest, legal or not.

His interference, regardless of his lack of knowledge of the reason the Deputies were arresting his wife, was illegal and his resistance to the deputies then arresting him for interfering with them was illegal.

[stevie_d_64]

Now, to throw in my two cents worth on this.

Your two cents are worth more than most folks'.

Especially when he agrees with you.

..................nope...................

Not going to go there...

Just.....cain't....stand it......ugggg......

[HankB]

Deputies were serving civil papers - doesn't that just mean he was being notified that he was being sued? When the deputies entered the garage, they didn't have a search warrant, they didn't have an arrest warrant, and they didn't see the person they were supposed to be serving papers on. So it would seem that they had no right to enter. (Aren't there penalties for trespassing?)

Was the garage attached to the house? If so, it's arguable that they engaged in a home invasion, which is probably a factor in why 5 of the 6 charges were dismissed.

Then there's the "taking the stun gun" charge. (Just for fun, lets assume this took place in Texas, rather than Florida, where different laws prevail.)

§ 38.14. TAKING OR ATTEMPTING TO TAKE WEAPON FROM PEACE OFFICER, PAROLE OFFICER, OR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OFFICER.
(a) In this section:
(1) "Firearm" has the meanings assigned by Section 46.01.
(2) "Stun gun" means a device designed to propel darts or other projectiles attached to wires that, on contact, will deliver an electrical pulse capable of incapacitating a person.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly and with force takes or attempts to take from a peace
officer, parole officer, or community supervision and corrections
department officer the officer's firearm, nightstick, stun gun, or
personal protection chemical dispensing device with the intention
of harming the officer or a third person.
(c) The actor is presumed to have known that the peace
officer, parole officer, or community supervision and corrections
department officer was a peace officer, parole officer, or
community supervision and corrections department officer if the
officer was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating his
employment, or if the officer identified himself as a peace
officer, parole officer, or community supervision and corrections
department officer.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
the defendant took or attempted to take the weapon from a peace
officer, parole officer, or community supervision and corrections
department officer who was using force against the defendant or
another in excess of the amount of force permitted by law.

Since the guy went out to the garage after hearing his wife "screaming in pain" and saw two people attacking her, it's plausible that his actions may have been justified under (d), above. Perhaps a jury would have seen it this way - with my non-lawyer's 20/20 hindsight, this argument may have carried some weight, particularly since he seemed to have a sympathetic judge.

Also, note that it's an offense if it's taken with the intention of harming the officer. An argument could be made that when he took the stun gun, he intended to keep it from being used to harm his wife . . . it was afterwards that he hit one of the deputies over the head with it. (Note that he didn't zap the deputy with it.) Establishing intent under (b) might have been tricky.

Florida and Texas laws are different . . . but the story, as presented, makes me tend to be sympathetic towards the homeowner. (I guess the judge was, too.)

[cyphur]

You've got to be kidding me - officers get to walk in, use UNJUSTIFIABLE FORCE to restrain my wife, in a CIVIL MATTER, when she was not using any sort of force against them? If I were to walk into my garage to find her on the ground, being restrained by officers using excessive force - I can't say I wouldn't get a little angry. I would not assault them, but you can be sure they would not be dealing with a calm collected individual. However - if I saw them injure my wife in an obvious fashion or blatantly assault her - all bets are off.


Recently there have been quite a few incidents in various neighborhoods I have lived in that have had strings of officer impersonations resulting in assaults, robberies and so forth. I would not for one second think twice about firing upon someone dressed in uniform who was in my house without properly announcing themselves and there for a justifiable reason. They wouldn't hesitate, why should I?

[kauboy]

The Deputies did not enter the garage to assault the woman. They entered to arrest her, obviously.

I take great exception to this. If they were serving papers to him, then they did not "enter to arrest her", for any reason. Only if more info comes out that she was acting in a manner deeming it necessary to restrain her, would I consider it okay. But closing a garage door is NOT reason to arrest. If she says the man is not home and closes the door, they CANNOT legally reopen the door, illegally enter, and arrest her on any trumped up charge.
This was wrong!!! She was on her property and they were only serving papers. When she decided to close the garage door, they decided to overstep their boundaries.

[Charles L. Cotton]

We have no idea what Florida law is, other than what was reported about the judge's ruling and its basis. The discussion to the extent it deals with the same scenario in Texas is interesting and will hopefully shed some light on what can and cannot be done in Texas.

We have to remember that the majority of forum members are from Texas, but we do have folks from other states. For a while, the posters have been very careful to point out that Florida law is an unknown quantity and limited the discussion to the application of Texas law. Let's keep doing that.

Chas.

[txinvestigator]

The Deputies did not enter the garage to assault the woman. They entered to arrest her, obviously.

I take great exception to this. If they were serving papers to him, then they did not "enter to arrest her", for any reason.

The why do you suppose they entered the garage and attempted to arrest her? The article even SAID they were attempting to arrest her.

But closing a garage door is NOT reason to arrest. If she says the man is not home and closes the door, they CANNOT legally reopen the door, illegally enter, and arrest her on any trumped up charge.

it does not matter if the deputies were legally arresting her or not. Resisting is illegal.

[txinvestigator]

Recently there have been quite a few incidents in various neighborhoods I have lived in that have had strings of officer impersonations resulting in assaults, robberies and so forth. I would not for one second think twice about firing upon someone dressed in uniform who was in my house without properly announcing themselves and there for a justifiable reason. They wouldn't hesitate, why should I?

You are setting yourself up for a trip to prison or lethal injection, or to be justifiably shot by the LEO's. What YOU may THINK is justifiable and what actually is justifiable can be very different things. An officer does not have to justify his actions or reason to be there to YOU in the field. He only has to justify them to court. (and his agency, but that is still after the fact.

Remember, the law does not allow the use of force to resist an arrest or search, even an unlawful one.

[kauboy]

But closing a garage door is NOT reason to arrest. If she says the man is not home and closes the door, they CANNOT legally reopen the door, illegally enter, and arrest her on any trumped up charge.

it does not matter if the deputies were legally arresting her or not. Resisting is illegal.

I'm not arguing the arrest, I'm arguing their blatant disregard for the fact that they illegally entered the residence. They had no warrant to do so.

[KBCraig]

Now, to throw in my two cents worth on this.

Your two cents are worth more than most folks'.

Especially when he agrees with you.

Steve and I don't always agree. But when he disagrees with you, it's worth at least a quarter.

Here's the rub: while we are comparing apples to oranges between Texas laws and those of Florida, in the case being discussed the deputies were wrong, and the homeowner was justified. As the judge stated, "The most critical is the fact the officers broke the law by stopping the garage door from going down," and then entering the garage.

Here is the sequence of events:
- Wife answers front door to find a deputy trying to serve her husband. She tells him her husband is sick and is in the bathroom, closes the door, and tells her husband.
- After some period of time, the deputy begins knocking again, but the wife ignores the knocks.
- Deputy also begins peering through the windows; wife closes the blinds in response.
- Wife attempts to close the garage door as well, the deputy hears the closer, and blocks the safety beam.
- At this point, a second deputy has arrived. They enter the garage and warn the wife that "further resistance" will result in her arrest.
- She turns to walk back into the house. According to the sheriff's report, "the deputies feared she was going to enter the residence and lock the door" (which was not illegal, nor was it obstruction).
- The deputies grabbed her by the arms (dislocating her shoulder) and handcuffed her on the floor of the garage.
- The husband responded to his wife's screams, responded, and a fight ensued.

In Florida, the deputies broke the law by entering the garage, and broke it again by falsely arresting the wife. Now using that same sequence of events in Texas, who broke the law, and when?

[razoraggie]

Well stated KBCraig

Even though I am former LE from another state and I am still familiarizing myself with Texas law; it is very clear that LEO cannot legally enter the home for a civil matter (i.e. civil court documents) unless they believe the person is an immediate threat to officers or themselves or commit a crime in the proces of being served. Reading ALL of the articles and opinions, I see nothing that the man's wife did wrong. The papers must be served to the individual named on the document, not a relative or spouse. And I may be mistaken here: but LEOs must announce their presence and intentions when serving a warrant. Do civil matters fall into some gray area here (or in FL)?

Should the man have retaliated against the officers? Probably not the wisest thing to do, but put yourself in his shoes for a moment and ask the same question. BOTTOM LINE. The officers in question illegally entered their residence.

[Jason73]

They entered to arrest her, obviously.

Really? How do you know, were you there?

it does not matter if the deputies were legally arresting her or not. Resisting is illegal.

Actually, no it isnt:

Texas Penal Code, 9.31 (C)
The use of force to resist arrest or search is justified:
(1) If, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Also:

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 (1900) stated:

"...where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right."

"an arrest made with a defective warrant; or one issued without affidavit; or one that fails to allege a crime is without jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested may resist arrest and break away."