According to Branscom, Wood was justified in entering the home given all the circumstances: complaints of possible underage drinking, no answer to his repeated knocks on the door, sounds of movement in the garage, a father worried about his unaccounted-for 16-year-old daughter and the possibility that she was inside the Hunsbergers' home.
"Entry to the house occurred only after Sgt. Wood and the [16-year-old] girl's father heard someone move through the garage into the basement, slam the door and ignore the father's plea to see his daughter," Branscom wrote in a detailed five-page account of what happened that night.
This article leaves out way too much of the story to really figure out what was really going on. Like who was complaining about the underage drinking? On what basis?
The prosecutor also noted that the state police investigation confirmed there was underage drinking going on in the basement of the Hunsberger home -- apparently unknown to the adults -- and that the 16-year-old girl was in fact present. While the Hunsbergers slept, the teens apparently ignored the knocks on the door by police and then hid because they were concerned about getting caught.
I'm not sure I like this reasoning any better. I wasn't aware that I was required to answer and open my door, or the police would come in anyway. In fact, isn't that what a warrant is supposed to be for? When the person being investigated refuses to cooperate? The investigation "confirmed there was underage drinking going on"? The parents admitted it? The kids? This, in itself, is now justification for entering someone's home unannounced? Actually, everyone involved is damn lucky no one was killed. The father could just as easily have had a pistol in his nightstand.
No comments:
Post a Comment