The case of Neil Entwistle presents a difficult dilemma. The crimes that he was convicted of in 2008 – the first-degree murders of his wife Rachel and 9-month-old daughter Lillian – are considered by many people to be among the worst crimes imaginable. But it is also true that police broke into his house with no warrant and no probable cause.
In his appellate brief, Entwistle, through his lawyer, Steven Maidman, argues that the search of his Hopkinton, Mass., house violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
First a quick rundown of the facts: Rachel’s parents and best friend became concerned when she did not answer the door for a planned dinner. They notified the Hopkinton Police Department, and as a result officers used a Blockbuster card to break in through the locked door, walked through the house, looked in all the rooms, opened the mail, and turned on the digital camera. They failed to find the bodies of Rachel and her 9-month-old daughter Lillian, covered with blankets in their bed. When Rachel’s friends and family members became even more worried, the cops returned the next day, entered the house through the garage using the code that a neighbor gave them, and ultimately found the bodies.
I have to agree with team Entwistle that the police officers’ actions were wrong and violated the Constitution. As Entwistle’s appellate brief sets forth, “Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable…But, the presumption of unreasonableness associated with the warrantless search of a home can be overcome when the police are faced with exigent circumstances.” Some examples of exigent circumstances would be a fire or if officers “have a reasonable basis to believe there may be someone inside who is injured or in imminent danger of physical harm.” Searching a home for evidence, however, does not fall under this category: “A warrantless entry to search for weapons or contraband is unconstitutional even when a felony has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that incriminating evidence will be found within.”
In Entwistle’s case, the police had no information that anyone was injured and saw no visible blood, fire, or property damage. Even though Neil, Rachel, and Lillian’s apparent disappearance was unusual and suspicious, there was no emergency that required the cops to break into the house on either of the two occasions. The second search, Entwistle’s lawyer writes, was by the officers’ own admissions for the sole purpose of looking for paperwork or other evidence that would help locate the Enwtistles. In short, “the federal and state constitutions have never permitted warrantless searches of homes by the police to rummage for paperwork or for other evidence that may help locate missing people.”
Although it is difficult and likely extremely unpopular to say so, I think Entwistle should be granted a new trial and the evidence seized as a result of the unconstitutional searches should be thrown out. The Bill of Rights safeguards the liberty and privacy of all people, including those who find themselves accused, truly or falsely, of horrible crimes. These fundamental rights cannot be suspended no matter how hated a person is or how guilty they may seem.
Read Entwistle’s appellate brief here (PDF).
