Police Came to the Door With Their Guns Drawn

My question involves the law for the state of: NY

Hi there.

A few days ago, a friend of mine [let's call him X] told me that police came to his door, waving their guns, taking the guns off the safety and pointing them to his chest, while claiming that they were 'searching' for he & another friend [let's call him Y].

According to X, the police claimed that there was a robbery in the neighborhood, and X & Y "fit the description" of the accused.

X claimed that he got the badge number of the police officer who allegedly pointed the gun, safety off, at his chest.

My question is two-fold:
1. Assuming what X told me was true, is this proper police procedure? [X claimed that the officers had no warrant -- just stormed his house like a bunch of stormtroopers.]
2. If this is not proper police procedure, does X have a lawsuit against the NYPD and the city of NY?

Caveat: as I was not there, I cannot say for 100% certainty that events transpired exactly as X claims they did. For all I know, he's greatly exaggerating his claims. However, if the claims are 100% correct, I'd like to know if he has remedies, because this whole thing just sounds so wrong to me. Thanks.

[edited to correct grammar]

If an officer's gun is out of it's holster, the safety is off.

Without knowing the exact circumstances as known to police at the time of the "raid", we can't possibly tell if the actions were warranted or not. There are lots of possibilities where these actions would be appropriate, and lots where they wouldn't. It would all depend on what police knew, and when they knew it.

If the search was conducted without a warrant AND without exigent circumstances, the remedy is that the defense challenges the admission of any evidence gained in the search.

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

If an officer's gun is out of it's holster, the safety is off.

Without knowing the exact circumstances as known to police at the time of the "raid", we can't possibly tell if the actions were warranted or not. There are lots of possibilities where these actions would be appropriate, and lots where they wouldn't. It would all depend on what police knew, and when they knew it.

If the search was conducted without a warrant AND without exigent circumstances, the remedy is that the defense challenges the admission of any evidence gained in the search.

---

No. Wrong. At least in theory there are remedies under 42 USC section 1983. There is qualified immunity as a defense under this section, but that may or may not apply in Xs case.

I wasn't about to go into all the possible theories - since even the poster doesn't know what actually happened.

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

I wasn't about to go into all the possible theories - since even the poster doesn't know what actually happened.

---

Remedies for the innocent are more important than remedies for the guilty.

Does he have grounds for a civil suit?

NO. Not a chance. No payday for your "friend."

You need a better class of friends, that is for sure.

If there is an illegal SEARCH, and you don't really say, then any evidence found can possibly be supressed. This is what a criminal attorney is for.

There is no civil recourse for the search.

Exactly what tort do you think the police can be sued for?
There isn't any. And what do you care, you going to pay for the attorney?

It's kinda hard to shoot somebody if the safety is on. That's why I like a revolver for home defense. And a Kel-Tec safety-less P3AT for personal defense. Cops practice their moves and procedures until it is automatic, but most of us don't develop that level of proficiency.

If an officer believes he is in danger, he's going to point his gun at the souce of the perceived threat. There's some allowance for a certain amount of errror in perceiving what is a threat when looked at in hindsight.

this is why I keep my 50 cal rifle loaded and ready .... vests mean nothing to this weapon ... I dont dial 911

Quote:

---

Quoting rockstar69

---

My question is two-fold:
1. Assuming what X told me was true, is this proper police procedure? [X claimed that the officers had no warrant -- just stormed his house like a bunch of stormtroopers.

---

Stormed UP to his house, porch, etc. OR, invaded it, meaning a warrantless home entry?

Quote:

---

2. If this is not proper police procedure, does X have a lawsuit against the NYPD and the city of NY?

---

Removing a gun from a holster and pointing it as described is without question a "Seizure" under the 4th AM.

Since we do NOT know the exact facts we can not determine if the Seizure was reasonable and or excessive??

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Stormed UP to his house, porch, etc. OR, invaded it, meaning a warrantless home entry?

---

Hi -- just saw this. According to X, X and Y were sitting on X's front step, waiting for X's mother to come home, when the NYPD stormed the front step, pointed the gun, etc. The police were not in the house.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Removing a gun from a holster and pointing it as described is without question a "Seizure" under the 4th AM.

Since we do NOT know the exact facts we can not determine if the Seizure was reasonable and or excessive??

---

According to X, they made no excessive movements, and instead simply put their hands up and behind their heads, as instructed. X memorized the shield number of the cop pointing the gun at him, and called the NYPD to verify that this was, indeed, "one of theirs." (It was.)

I was under the impression that police are only allowed to draw their weapons if there is a clear and imminent danger. Since X (and, for that matter, Y)'s only "threat" was that they were black men living in a bad neighborhood (according to both X and Y, who have -- subsequent to this original post -- spoke to me separately about this issue, this happens all the time in their neighborhood), I'm not sure what the cop's motives were, exactly.

I just feel I should have come here to ask if this was an acceptable procedure, and if it is not, if there's anything I can do to assist them in stopping this from happening in the future (be that through a lawsuit, a formal complaint, whatever).

Any clarification on this would be appreciated. Many thanks.

Quote:

---

Quoting rockstar69

---

I was under the impression that police are only allowed to draw their weapons if there is a clear and imminent danger.

---

You thought wrong.

Now, there MIGHT be some agency somewhere that holds such a ridiculous agency policy, but it is not the law in any state I am aware of. The officer should be able to articulate good cause as to why he felt the drawing and aiming of the weapon is necessary, but if the cops waited until some sort of "clear and imminent" threat was present, more of them might be killed.

When I worked in southern California it was not uncommon for me and my peers to make approaches on traffic stops with our gun out and at our side. We tried to keep it unobtrusive, but there it was. And in my career I have leveled a weapon at many people who later on were determined not to be a threat, but we did not know at the time and were not willing to risk it at the moment.

Quote:

---

Since X (and, for that matter, Y)'s only "threat" was that they were black men living in a bad neighborhood (according to both X and Y, who have -- subsequent to this original post -- spoke to me separately about this issue, this happens all the time in their neighborhood), I'm not sure what the cop's motives were, exactly.

---

And unless someone asks them, no one will know why they drew their guns. And if the matter does not go to trial, that justification may never come out. Your friends can certainly complain to the NYPD and then, maybe, they might get an answer.

Quote:

---

I just feel I should have come here to ask if this was an acceptable procedure, and if it is not, if there's anything I can do to assist them in stopping this from happening in the future (be that through a lawsuit, a formal complaint, whatever).

---

There is nothing YOU can do. THEY can make a complaint to the NYPD and they can consult an attorney if they wish. However, I doubt they have much o fa lawsuit given what you have so far written, but they can certainly ask around ... though they had best be able to articulate some sort of damages.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

You thought wrong.

. . .

And unless someone asks them, no one will know why they drew their guns. And if the matter does not go to trial, that justification may never come out. Your friends can certainly complain to the NYPD and then, maybe, they might get an answer.
. . .

---

So what s/he is saying is that your friends have to sue the police to find out why the guns were drawn and whether the policeman lied about the reasons for drawing their guns (eg, furtive movements, reached for waistband, etc). The downside is that it is difficult and expensive to sue and there may not be much money to win because they weren't killed or even wounded. Still, if they really want to know, they need to sue. If they can't afford a lawyer then they can represent themselves (although it will be a lot of work).

ON EDIT: frankly, they would probably be better off spending the effort and money wiring their homes, porches and vehicles for audio and video recording, in case it happens again. If the police lie and there is contradictory video / audio evidence then the police will generally pay a handsome settlement to avoid the lie from going into the policeman's record.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

. . .
And unless someone asks them, no one will know why they drew their guns. And if the matter does not go to trial, that justification may never come out. Your friends can certainly complain to the NYPD and then, maybe, they might get an answer. . . .

---

So what s/he is saying is that your friends have to sue the police to find out why the guns were drawn and whether the policeman lied about the reasons for drawing their guns (eg, furtive movements, reached for waistband, etc). The downside is that it is difficult and expensive to sue and there may not be much money to win because they weren't killed or even wounded. Still, if they really want to know, they need to sue. If they can't afford a lawyer then they can represent themselves (although it will be a lot of work).

Frankly, they would probably be better off spending the effort and money wiring their homes, porches and vehicles for audio and video recording, in case it happens again. If the police lie and there is contradictory video / audio evidence then the police will generally pay a handsome settlement to avoid the lie from going into the policeman's record.

Quote:

---

If the police lie and there is contradictory video / audio evidence then the police will generally pay a handsome settlement to avoid the lie from going into the policeman's record.

---

What planet is that?

Yes, indeed, what planet?

First, assuming they have the money and this will happen again to the same people in the same spot over the next million years. Well before the million years is up the equipment is sure to stop working.

Secondly, security cameras do NOT have microphones as a matter of FEDERAL LAW.

Third, recording audio would require a completely different system and wiring microphones. G. Gordon Liddy might still be available for guidance, or did he go religious like Colson?

Fourth, the chances of an intelligible recording of just the right conversation, especially on the porch or in the yard is highly unlikely.

Fifth, the audio recording would likely be a violation of state and/or federal law and would not be admissible in any court anyway.

Sixth, exactly WHAT would they be suing for again, and WHAT exactly would be their damages in FantasyLand?

That poster might want to read Lee v. Florida, US Supreme Court, 392 US 378to pick up a clue or two.

Do we thank him for his participation?

Quote:

---

Quoting aardvarc

---

What planet is that?

---

A little planetoid orbiting Proxima Centauri.

Clenville, police enjoy what is known as "qualified immunity". To successfully sue them one must overcome this burden.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

. . .

Clenville, police enjoy what is known as "qualified immunity". To successfully sue them one must overcome this burden.

---

Correct. And if you have video of a policeman that shows he is lying, then that is going to be extremely helpful in overcoming that burden.

More importantly, if one has video that shows a policeman is lying then chances are very good that the litigation will never proceed to summary judgment motion (Rule 56 motion, that is) for judgment for defendants based on "q.i." because the parties involved will settle to prevent the lie from becoming memorialized in the public record to such an extent that the policeman must be fired. the settlement means a couple of thing: (i) the victim with the video gets money; and (ii) the victim with the video promises to keep everything hush-hush.

If the OP's friends are trying to choose between pursuing the past situation with no video, or buying a nice video system for next time, then they should probably opt for the video system. Without video the victim of unConstitutional police treatment will almost always lose. With video, they generally get settlements. If the OP's friends want to help stop unConstitutional police behavior then they need to start video'ing. It is that simple.

I didn't even go there, as that would be long after an attorney laughed in their faces and I don't think the poster I was really addressing even knew what qualified immunity is.

Of course you are correct BOR.

I wouldn't even think a civil action could get filed without the attorney being sanctioned, much less surviving through the first couple of motions.

In addition, a city and police unions have big time insurance that hires big time attorney muscle who are experts in these types of cases who will keep the plaintiff in court forever before paying a dime on a case like this. Of course they would probably get it thrown on failure to state a claim even before the answer was due.


I have done those the day after the service. There is 20 days to answer the complaint and I can get a motion filed, they have to answer it in 10 days, before any discovery, and I can get a hearing in three days (when you know what you are doing) and have them in court before the 20 days is up. Even if there is no hearing until after the 20 days, the answer is not due until the motion is ruled on and there isn't going to be any discovery starting.

My point is, flaky cases do not survive long. Judges have also gotten fed up with frivolous cases and are sanctioning lawyers big bucks.

And for dumbnutz, the audio will not be admissible. Cops can lie all they like to defendants or whoever in the course of an investigation anyway. How does ANY of what you are fantazing about rise to the level of a Constitutional injury. Give it a rest. We don't have legal discussions about people's fantasy life.

PS: You must have watched the Rodney King video way too many times.

Most departments I've ever interacted with WANT to know if there is a problem with their officer. That way they can assess whether the officer needs refresher training on a particulr aspect of the job. If the officer has a history of problems, or the refresher doesn't take, the department then can move forward with appropriate disciplinary action to deal with the officer up to and including termination. You give the officer a chance, provided it wasn't a major screw up, to correct themselves. If not, it may be time to have them "seek other career opportunities" to protect the department should they fould up again.

If you read the OP post, you'll see that he was not there...yada yada yada ... I assume the cops had a warrant .... cops think thay are rambo now-a-days .. society lets them