Issue link: http://lawandordermag.epubxp.com/i/65600
Police Enter Residence During On-Scene Questioning In Ryburn v. Huff, police in Burbank, Calif. were investigating allegations of a student making threats against his high school. During their initial investigation at the school, the principal informed police of rumors that Vincent Huff, a student who was frequently subjected to bullying, had written a letter threatening to "shoot up" the school. Vincent had been absent for two days, so Sgt. Ryburn and other officers went to Vincent's home to inquire about the threats. They knocked and announced their presence at his residence several times, but no one responded. Then they called the house phone and could hear the phone ringing inside, but no one answered the phone. Sgt. Ryburn then called the cell phone of Vincent's mother. She answered her cell phone, and told Sgt. Ryburn that she and Vincent were inside, but then abruptly hung up on him when he asked her to speak with him outside. A minute or two later she and Vincent walked outside and briefly spoke with the officers. Mrs. Huff never asked why the police were there, and when Sgt. Ryburn asked her if there were guns in the house, she im- mediately turned and ran into the house. Sgt. Ryburn went into the house behind her, they were followed by Vincent, and then a second officer went in so Sgt. Ryburn wouldn't be in there alone. Two additional officers who had been standing outside out of earshot followed the first two officers in- side, believing Mrs. Huff had given them consent to enter her home. The officers remained in the living room for 5 to 10 minutes, conversing with Mr. Huff and Vincent. Mr. Huff challenged their authority to be in the house. The of- ficers were eventually satisfied that the rumors about Vincent's threats were false and reported their findings to the school. The Huffs later sued Sgt. Ryburn and the other officers, alleging they unlawfully en- tered residence without a warrant in viola- tion of the Fourth Amendment. This appeal to the United States Supreme Court was on the question of whether the involved officers were entitled to "qualified immunity" from civil liability. The federal trial court had held they were, because a reasonable officer could have thought a warrantless entry to be lawful, there Click on EInfo at - www.lawandordermag.com reader service #13 www.lawandordermag.com 17 being no pertinent case law that clearly established the contrary. A divided United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir- cuit had held that no reasonable officer could have thought this warrantless entry to be lawful and therefore the officers did not qualify for immunity. The United States Supreme Court de- cided that a reasonable officer could have thought this entry to be lawful because no pertinent case law clearly prohibited it – and then unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Note that the Supreme Court is not ruling on the law- fulness of the entry, only on whether the officers were eligible for immunity from