[email protected]
or use our live chat
888-579-7796
Customer Service
or use our live chat
Customer Service
EXCELLENT Based on 387 reviews sean thompson2024-09-06Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Just took the SRO course. What an absolute outstanding training!!! I am not an SRO and have not been one. But as the Captain I need to learn and understand as much as I can. This course is excellent to have a better understanding of the law and the SRO... Keep up the great work B2G!!!! Doug Wallace2024-08-29Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Good information provided on S&S James Scira2024-08-27Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training. I would recommend Blue to Gold training to members of LE. Nichalas Liddle2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. I have had the pleasure of getting to watch some webinars from Blue to Gold and have enjoyed all the insights and knowledge that the instructors have. Good training for all of us in LE careers. Keep on with the good work yโall do. brian kinsley2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great training, refreshers, topic introductions. I love the free webinars! It really helps when budgets are tight. Thank you!! Tim Crouch2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Great, free webinars. Thank you. I love the attorney provided content for up to date and accurate information. Anthony Smith2024-08-21Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google. Awesome stuff!
Gifts & Gears
Mailing Address
Blue to Gold, LLC
12402 N Division St #119
Spokane, WA 99218
RESEARCH
Officers received a report there was a rumor circulating that a particular student had threatened to โshoot upโ his school. The officers went to the school and discovered the student had been absent the last two days and had been a bullying victim. The officers went to the studentโs home, knocked on the door several times, but received no response. The officers then made phone calls to the home, but no one answered. Eventually, the studentโs mother answered her cell phone and told the officers that she was inside the home with her child. When the officer asked to speak to her and the child, the mother hung up. Moments later, she and her child came out of the house and stood on the front steps. The officers told the mother why they were there and requested to go inside the house to discuss the matter. When the mother refused, one of the officers asked if there were any guns in the house. Instead of answering the question, the mother turned around and ran into the house. The officers followed the mother inside the house. After discussing the matter with her, the officers discounted the rumor concerning her child โshooting upโ the school and left the house. The mother sued the officers, claiming they violated the Fourth Amendment by entering her house without consent, a warrant or an exigency.
Whether the officers were reasonable in making an entry into the home?
Yes. Several articulable factors indicated that the officers should have been concerned for their safety as well as other persons
Courts take special caution when officer safety requires prompt entry into a home; however, the court added, โNo decision of this Court has found a Fourth Amendment violation on facts even roughly comparable to those present in this case.โ Here, the officers could articulate several factors that could reasonably lead them to believe there was an imminent threat of violence: the unusual behavior of the mother in not answering the door or the telephone; the mother did not inquire about the reason for the officersโ visit; she hung up the telephone on the officer; she refused to tell the officers whether there were guns in the house; she ran back into the house while being questioned; her son was the victim of bullying; he had been absent from school for two days; and he supposedly threatened to โshoot upโ the school. Based on these facts, the Court found the officersโ warrantless entry into the home was reasonable.
565 U.S. 469, 132 S. Ct. 987 (2012)
ยฉ Blue to Gold, LLC. All rights reserved