Case Birmingham V.

2008 Words9 Pages
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA BIRMINGHAM DIVISION STATE OF ALABAMA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO.: DC 2003-0001234.00 ) SIMMONS, et. al., ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS STATEMENT OF FACTS At approximately 1:30 P.M. on February 25, 2012, the Southside Precinct of the Birmingham Police Department received a phone call from a woman who was walking her dog. She stated that she heard two men fighting at 1213 Highland Avenue in what may have been a possible domestic disturbance. At 2:15 P.M. a patrol car responded to the address. The responding officers, Sergeant A. Frick and Patrolman R. Frack, arrived on…show more content…
It was not until Sergeant Frick was right up to the door that the “sounds of a struggle” were heard. Therefore, it would seem very implausible that an individual walking her dog on the sidewalk or street amid ambient sounds of, traffic, wind, birds singing and chirping, dogs barking, etc. would be able to hear any sounds from the interior of the Defendants’ home. This is an undeniable violation of the defendants’ privacy by the dog walker for approaching the door of the house closely enough to here the “sounds of struggle”, but also by the responding officers for breaching the seal of the home and entering the residence. The officers should have announced their presence on more than just the initial entrance into the house. There has also been a violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights when government interfered with the choice of social or private lifestyle that the defendants choose to engage in. In , 478 U.S. 186 (1986), The Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Georgia’s sodomy statute did not violate the fundamental rights of homosexuals. There have since been many decisions by The United States Supreme Court that have contradicted this holding. The defendants have a lifestyle that some people do not agree with. They are homosexuals. They are in social association with other homosexuals as well as others that are not homosexual. These affiliations happen both publicly and privately. What…show more content…
2. The dog walker and police officers clearly invaded the privacy of the defendants when (a.) She (the dog walker) came upon the defendants’ property in close enough proximity to the front door to hear the aforementioned “sounds of struggle”, and (b.) The officers breaching the seal of the residence and entering it, after hearing said “sounds of struggle”resulting in the charge and arrest of the defendants. As mentioned in the facts, the dog walker heard sounds of “two men fighting”. However, it was not until the police officers responded and got right up to the front door, that they heard the same “sounds of struggle”. In order to hear these sounds the dog walker clearly entered upon the defendants’ property, constituting an invasion of privacy. The officers responding also invaded the privacy of the defendants’ bedroom. Although the entrance to the house was legal, they were completely aware that there were persons in the residence. The officers should have continued to call out making their presence known until receiving an answer from the defendants instead of continuing to search room to room after hearing no response from the only single announcement made as they entered the house. The expectation of privacy would lead our clients to believe that their personal

More about Case Birmingham V.

Open Document