Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

COURTS:

Legal search or abuse of authority? Case involving Metro hinges on that question

The rules of when police can enter a U.S. citizen's home without a warrant are as old as the Constitution, which offers protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Modern-day laws were called into question in 2009 after Metro Police entered a residence in response to a call about a suspected burglary, held a group of teenagers inside the home at gunpoint, arrested the homeowner and shot and killed the family's dog.

The botched police call has prompted a complicated, years-long legal battle that took its latest turn last month when the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to take up the case. In rejecting Metro's appeal of a lower court decision in the case — Jesus Rodriguez Sandoval vs. Metro Police — the high court set the stage for a trial possibly later this year.

Both sides say the ongoing legal dispute calls into question civil rights, the constitutional protections against warrantless entry and Nevada's own laws about when police can enter a home.

"Everyone has the right to feel secure in their own home," said civil rights lawyer Brent Bryson, who represents the families inside the house during the incident. "That's the big issue here."

Not so, says Metro’s lawyer, Liesl Freedman. She says the key issue is providing police the legal cover they need to make in-the-moment decisions to keep people safe.

"We want police to enter when there really is an [emergency]," said Freedman, "and you don't want them to hesitate."

"I'm going to let your dog die"

The case stems from an Oct. 24, 2009, raid at the central Las Vegas valley home of Jesus Rodriguez Sandoval and Adriana Rodriguez prompted by a 911 call from a neighbor who said he spotted two white males ages 18 to 20 jumping a fence and peering through the windows of a residence. The call sounded similar to a pattern of burglaries in the area, according to Metro's brief filed with the Supreme Court.

Officer Michael Dunn, who had less than one year experience at the time, and Sgt. Jay Roberts responded to the call and approached the couple's house after seeing three male teens go through an open bedroom window. The boys — Sandoval's son, Henry Brian Rodriguez, then 18; and two of his friends, ages 16 and 15 — were listening to music, watching TV and playing video games. They were all described as Hispanic.

According to a brief Sandoval's lawyer filed with the Supreme Court, Roberts didn't ask who they were and pointed his gun at the head of one of the boys through the bedroom window. He gave them conflicting commands, telling them, "don't move," "(l)et me see your hands," and "turn the music down."

He then threatened to shoot the boy on whom he'd trained his pistol, as reported in a summary of the case.

According to court testimony, the officers ordered the boys to leave the room, as Officer Dunn decided to enter the home through an open sliding glass door. Roberts, through the window, declined the boys' request to put away the Sandovals’ pit bull, Hazel. As the boys left the bedroom per the officers' request, the dog slipped out as well. Dunn, greeted by Hazel at the sliding door, shot the dog in the face, and officers then handcuffed the boys.

Henry Sandoval testified that the officer told him, "If you don't shut the (expletive) up, I'm going to let your dog die right here," according to the appellate court summary. Hazel died after Animal Control staff arrived at the house.

Jesus Sandoval said he arrived home with his 12-year-old daughter to find the boys handcuffed on his front lawn. When he tried to approach his son, the officers handcuffed him, too, as he protested that he had just had back surgery.

The officers eventually left without charging anyone with a crime.

The law of the land

When the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case, by default the justices upheld a July 2014 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision that police illegally entered Sandoval's home. There were no signs of a burglary and the house was occupied by three Hispanic teens, not two young white adults as the tipster suggested, wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown.

Metro's lawyer Freedman argues policed did due diligence before they entered the home: They noticed an open side gate, open shed door and open sliding door.

Freedman said Metro also wanted the Supreme Court — and now, a jury — to interpret existing law to ensure Nevada police can investigate misdemeanors without a warrant, which in Nevada includes such crimes as domestic violence. In Nevada, a burglary is a felony, which legal precedent allows more leeway for in a warrantless entry case, according to the brief Metro filed to the Supreme Court. The brief also requested Officer Dunn be granted immunity from his actions because the law is vague.

"I don't think the 9th Circuit should have made this blanket kind of statement," Freedman said. She added that every day, officers face situations where they must decide whether to enter a home without a warrant.

Sandoval's lawyer, Bryson, said police not only entered the home with zero legal basis, but behaved terribly once they were inside.

"What happened to the family would have never happened if police hadn't entered the home," he said, adding police should have asked basic questions about the boys' identities when officers approached the open window.

He said at trial he would ask the jury to decide whether police used excessive force and what damages the families should receive for the 9th Circuit's decision that police violated their constitutional rights.

He said his client was asking for at least $5 million in damages and legal fees.

Representatives for two national law enforcement groups said the case, while interesting, didn't have any bearing on how police across the nation would conduct their warrantless searches.

Metro had every right to enter the home based on the circumstances laid out in the case, said Bill Johnson, the director of the National Association Police Organization, though he said how police treated the teens once they were inside "was regrettable."

"In that type of circumstance, we expect officers to investigate," Johnson said. "When they get there and see the gate ajar and the sliding glass door open, we expect them to follow up further."

Freedman said the agency knew appealing to the Supreme Court was "a long shot," but that its lawyers felt strongly the officers involved acted legally.

"It's not the end of the case," she said.

Sun reporter Ana Ley contributed to this story.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy