Am I screwed?

[tytler32u]

Ive been held for research by pics. 8 years ago in Florida I got a domestic charge. My wife and I were arguing one night. We were both yelling and threw a magazine (paper) against the wall. Anyway, the argument stopped and about 10 minutes later there are cops @ the door. I opened the door and they immediately entered my property and started opening doors, and went upstairs. I was yelling @ them to get the f--- out of my house and that they didnt have a warrant. My wife was screaming also. They werent so happy about the colorful language I was spewing @ them as my rights were being violated. They seperated my wife and I and after about 5 minutes I was cuffed and arrested for Domestic Abuse. My wife told them we were arguing and that I never touched her or threatened her. She did mention that I threw a magazine against the wall, not anywhere near her by the way. Evidently throwing anything, even if not @ someone, constitutes domestic violence. The police barging through my house @ first, was so that they knew the scene was secure.WHATEVER. The fact that I pissed off the cops led to my arrest that night.
I decided to fight the charges, with my wife by my side. She couldnt believe I got arrested and almost got arrested herself for making such a scene when she found out. However, my attorney recommend i take this deal where I take some classes, and then the charge would go away. I guess something similar to ARD. A few years later my employer ran checks on all employees and that charge was still there. I was pissed, but it didnt cost me my job, so I didnt pursue it.
I want to know what my rights are. It cant be that I threw a magazine in my house and I lose my right to arm myself and protect my family. If the PICS does come back denied does that mean I can never fire a gun again? What if my wife bought a gun, someone breaks in, can I use it to protect my family?
Sorry about the novel, but I have never ever struck a woman in my life, and wanted everyone to understand that. The neighbors called the police that night by the way.

[HiredGoon]

Just to clarify. Did you try to buy a gun or try to get a License To Carry Firearms? Both use PICS for background checks.

I'd say you'd have to inquire with a FL attorney about seeing IF your record there could be expunged...if that's even possible. Depends on the charges you had and what type. Just my guess. I'm sure others more knowledgeable will respond as well.

[XUSNORDY]

What "exactly" were you charged with?

[God's Country]

The bottom line is were you convicted or did you plead guilty to anything?
Getting arrested or charged isn’t a crime. Enrolling in some program where you’re a good for a while and the charges get dropped isn’t a conviction. You should have documentation if the charges were dropped. Your arrest record would likely still be there however, which would need to be expunged, but is not an issue for approval.
My guess is they saw your arrest for domestic and they are looking into it further.
You’ll probably be fine.

People are getting held up by PIC’s all time. If you are denied you can appeal. I’m not familiar with the process, others here are. You need to appeal any denial quickly otherwise I think it becomes permanent, then you’ll need a lawyer and money. So if you should get denied don’t procrastinate.

[Seventy4Blazer]

what they said ....

and they entered your house in a legal way FYI.

[Brown-Bear]

Originally Posted by Seventy4Blazer

what they said ....

and they entered your house in a legal way FYI.

Yes they did. PC came from the neighbors calling and reporting a domestic in progress. Your rights were not violated that evening.

On the OP, I would agree that you need to contact a FL lawyer and have yuor record expunged, but being arrested should not hold you up. An arrest does not a conviction make.

BB

[Hokkmike]

Interesting first post. Please consult a lawyer on this one.

[Rule10b5]

This is a bit of a threadjack, but the issue is sufficiently important that I figured I'd comment -- simply because of a comment that the police had probable cause to enter the home and that the entry was legal.

No. The entry was illegal.

Probable cause, as the term is used 99% of the time in a legal context -- as a threshhold level of suspicion necessary to investigate a likely crime -- is not sufficient to justify warrantless entry to a home.

Entry into a home without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 586 (1980). However, given that the prescription against warrantless searches is directed only at unreasonable searches, it is well-established that sufficiently exigent circumstances will allow entry into a home without a warrant because the entry is reasonable -- not because there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Examples would be (i) entry to fight a fire (the Tyler case); or (ii) an officer responds to a phoned in complaint, actually sees a fist fight through a window, knocks on the door, nobody answers, and he enters (Brigham City v. Stuart).

An example of a clearly bad entry would be where they were trying to enter to arrest a DUI suspect before his blood alcohol dropped.

The test isn't whether a crime has been committed or evidence is going to be destroyed and the officer is showing up to investigate (PC) -- it's whether there is a crime going on that is so serious and prevents enough of a risk of imminent injury that it creates an exigency that renders the search reasonable.

Huge, huge difference.

Thus, the inquiry isn't whether the police had probable cause to believe the OP and his wife were committing the crime of domestic battery (or whatever they call it down there) -- the question is whether, once the OP and his wife opened the door, the exigency (stopping a serious and life threatening fight between a husband and wife) still existed.

And, quite frankly, if the OP had a better lawyer, he would have argued that the entry and contact was unreasonable because (i) the officers didn't see any violence when they came to the door; (ii) the OP answered the door, so he thus could not have been currently engaged in conduct that threatened imminent harm; and (iii) his wife was near enough that the officers could see neither one was harmed, and not in immediate danger of harm that would have been prevented by pushing in the door and searching the entire house.

It's a HUGE step from Brigham City to what happened here. Phone call from a neighbor, without any indication of an imminent threat, isn't enough.

And the foregoing is the basis for a motion to suppress everything, including the wife's and the OP's statements, discovered after the entry.

This was, absolutely, an improper entry under current law. Do you really think the police should be allowed to kick in your door because your neighbor called and said you were having a verbal argument? Seriously? Do you want to live in the sort of world where your rights are so irrelevant, and your home so open, that a complete stranger can call the police, talk for 30 seconds, and then all of a sudden there are police in your bedroom because you got a little loud?

And the wife's statement that "He threw a magazine" isn't enough of a basis for a DV or A&B charge to work -- especially when the wife is saying that she wasn't threatened. Everyone has thrown something in an argument with a spouse. Jurors, too. His lawyer was an idiot.

The foregoing, while rambling, leads to this point: There are very, very few times when you have to let a police officer in your home. Be polite, be firm, and make your position clear. Nothing good can come of them coming into your home. And you NEVER gain a thing by consenting. Never, ever, consent to a search. Even a limited search. Again, be polite, be firm, and make your position clear.

They will ask you why you won't let them in/search if you haven't committed a crime or have nothing to hide.

THE ONLY RESPONSE is: "If you didn't think I'd done something wrong, you wouldn't be asking to search. I am not obligated to waive my rights, and I do not consent to a search."

Or better yet: Don't open your door. Put up a security gate outside your actual door, keep it locked, and open your interior door if you must talk to them. Personally, I'd ignore them in the OP's situation -- I wouldn't even go to the door. Cops kicking in the door to find you and your wife sitting calming reading newspapers will put a huge damper on their bullshit.

[Roscoe]

Well I'm glad you didn't hit your wife but you should'a smacked your neighbor.

Just curious are you still married.........................to the same women.......


J/K

[Hawk]

Let me play devils advocate here for a second. Lets hypothesize what the police knew on the way to the scene that neighbors had called in about some type of abnormal commotion going on next door. I don't know if this was the first time or it has happened before, but lets say it was the first time that the neighbors heard anything like this from the OP's house. I'm sure the neighbors were concerned enough about what may be happening to call the police instead of just letting it go. (Or were they just pissed off because of all the noise?)Anyways, I'm assuming the police didn't know the OP and his wife or who even lives there. According to the report they had reasonable belief that there might be some type of violence going on and someone might be in fear for their safety or life. When the OP answered the door and the police didn't observe any activity that would indicate the OP and his Wife were or had been physically engaged in a fight, the police, not knowing if there were other occupants that might be the ones that were fighting and were hiding, searched the house to confirm no one was still in danger and that the OP and his wife were the only suspects. As for the police actions after the search I have no response to support what they did. So, I'm not on the LEO's side here, I'm just offering a different point of view. BTW, I've seen this several times happen on COP shows, where there were multiple occupants and the ones answering the door were not the ones fighting.