Richard D. Easley

Kansas City Police Department

1125 Locust, 5^th Floor

Kansas City Mo. 64106

Phone: 816-234-5000 Fax: 816-234-5013

Dear Mr. Easley,

I am writing you to let you know about a recent federal court decision that will affect the arrest policies in your police department. This is an important decision that changes the rules as to when an officer needs to get an arrest warrant before making and arrest. I therefore encourage you to pass this letter on to your legal staff.

As you know, warrantless arrests in the home are prohibited by the 4^th amendment. Police officers are trained to get an arrest warrant before making an in-home arrest. However, on July 22^nd 1999 Federal Judge Scott O. Wright of Kansas City made a decision that appears to nullify what is commonly understood as to what an in-home arrest is. According to Judge Wright, if a police officer comes to the door and knocks to arrest you, and you open the door to see who's knocking, that constitutes a public arrest, not an in-home. Judge Wright ruled that by opening the door in response to a knock that you are no longer protected by the 4^th amendment and have waived your constitutional rights.

This decision comes as a result of a civil rights lawsuit I filed against the Springfield Police Department for false arrest. The case number is 98-3486-CV-S-SOW, and you can find it on my web site at http://www.perkel.com/pbl/city and read all about it. I personally find this decision very disturbing in that it gives individual police officers the power of a judge and a prosecutor to determine when a person is to be arrested and jailed. I believe that this decision will encourage lawlessness within police departments as individual officers abuse these new found powers of arrest.

A brief summary of the undisputed facts in my case are as follows:

In his decision Judge Wright found that the arresting officers had no warrant and that trespassing was not a felony. However, the judge ruled that by appearing in the doorway and opening the front door, that I was no longer protected by the fourth amendment and that the arrest was a public arrest rather than an in-home arrest. Judge Wright ruled summarily, as a matter of law, that a warrantless arrest under this set of facts was a legal arrest. Under a summary judgement ruling, the court ruled assuming my set of facts were true.

I encourage you to have your legal counsel read this case because I believe that this decision is binding on the entire Western District of Missouri including your city. Even if this decision is dead wrong, Judge Wright has created a bubble of immunity for any officer who makes an illegal home arrest without an arrest warrant under the theory of qualified immunity. As you know, an officer has qualified immunity unless his conduct violates clearly established case law. With this decision it is no longer clearly established for this district what the term "in-home arrest" means. Clearly, if a person in his home is not in his home when he answers a knock at the door, then an attorney for an officer accused of making an improper arrest can claim as a defense that the officer was confused as to what a person has to do to be considered in his home. The line as to when a person is in his home is now so fuzzy that any good lawyer can argue for qualified immunity based upon confusion. They could argue that the term "in-home arrest" has no legal meaning at all.

If the officers are immune from making illegal arrests, then what will stop them from doing so? Any officer who claims to have read this case off my web site can claim confusion over the meaning of the law. If it confuses me and it confuses you, it certainly would confuse the police. And we all know that an illegal act with immunity is the same as a legal act for all practical purposes.

Judge Wright's decision to overrule the Constitution reminds me of the book "Animal Farm" by George Orwell in that his decision perverts the Constitution to the point where it no longer has any meaning. I hope that you agree with me and the United States Supreme Court in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371, that stated:

The reason this is important to you as Chief of Police is that you are going to have to deal with these new rules as to how to deal with officers who decide on their own to make warrantless arrests. I strongly encourage you to bring this matter to the attention of your legal experts and to call Judge Wright for clarification on this and related issues so that you and your officers understand the impact of this decision. I am sending a similar letter to other police chiefs in the area to inform them as well. You might want to jointly determine what is proper conduct for police officers now that Judge Wright has, for all practical purposes, repealed the fourth amendment to the constitution. I intend to appeal this decision in the eighth circuit and you may want to file an amicus brief on the impact to law enforcement if police officers are allowed to usurp the powers of magistrate and prosecutor. I also encourage you to contact me at 417-866-1222 and to contact Judge Wright at 816-512-5714.

Sincerely,

_________________________________

Marc Perkel * 07-31-99