I was challenged when I argued in a previous posting that Provincetown police lacked authority to enter upon private property to arrest Barry Scott for allegedly playing loud music and stirring up more noise with a few words of protest. The question is settled by Commonwealth v. Kiser, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 647 (2000), where a warrantless entry in circumstances more compelling than Barry’s case was held to be unlawful. I will excerpt key passages to reiterate the point that I originally made, that loud music or criticism of the police on private property does not justify a warrantless entry and arrest. First the facts, then the legal conclusion:
“Sometime after 3:00 A.M. on October 24, 1996, four police officers returning to their cars from another call were approached by a woman complaining about a noisy party up the street. The officers walked toward the building she had indicated and heard loud music coming from the third floor. They went upstairs and knocked. The defendant answered the door, standing on the threshold “neither in the apartment nor in the hallway.” The officers recognized him as a member of a local gang that had a reputation for narcotics and weapons violations. One of the officers asked the defendant to turn the music down, and he responded “yeah, okay.” Just then, an unidentified male ran from one side of the room to the other, out of the officer’s line of sight. The officer moved forward to get a better view into the room. The defendant pushed the officer back, “although not off his feet or backward any appreciable distance,” and tried to close the door. The officers then forcibly pushed the door open and entered, out of a stated concern for their safety. The officers told everyone who did not live there to leave and ordered those remaining to put their hands on a nearby pool table. The defendant did not leave, and the police asked him for his identification. At first he refused, but then he said it was in his room and asked whether he could retrieve it. Two officers accompanied him into the room. When they saw contraband on top of his dresser in plain view, they placed the defendant under arrest.
“The government claims no warrant was required because the loud music was a breach of the peace, and the police entered under the authority of G. L. c. 41, § 98. 1 The judge rejected that contention and ruled that loud-sounding music was not the sort of riotous behavior that justified entry under the statute. We agree with the judge that if any statute permits a warrantless entry, its application must meet constitutional safeguards. While the Legislature may expand the authority of police to make warrantless arrests for certain misdemeanors, it may do so only if minimum standards set out by the Supreme Court are met. See, e.g., Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 61, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917, 88 S. Ct. 1889 (1968); Commonwealth v. Jacobsen, 419 Mass. 269, 272 n.3, 644 N.E.2d 213 (1995)….
“These criteria clearly do not support any sort of exigency which would justify bursting into the defendant’s apartment to suppress the loud music he had just agreed to turn down. Whatever intimidating — and hence compelling circumstances — the police may have to dispense with the warrant requirement to enter a dwelling, the judge could find, as he did, that this was not the case here. The judge found that the loud music did not amount to a breach of the peace as contemplated by the statute. As the Supreme Court put it, HN8″it is difficult to conceive of a warrantless home arrest that would not be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the underlying offense is extremely minor.” Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 753, 80 L. Ed. 2d 732, 104 S. Ct. 2091 (1984). Playing music — even so loudly that it disturbs the neighbors — is an extremely minor offense.”
Anthony, please take notice of this case if you are a police officer or an attorney advising police officers on questions of search and seizure.
I can’t imagine people being able to argue away a precedent like that, but we shall see what others have to say.
<
p>
Even if the police had the right to arrest Barry Scott, they did not have the right to use so much force. Even when you argue that he could have hurt himself falling on his nose, that still does not explain the officer kicking him, stepping on his bare toes, and the willful neglect his partner received and the detention center.
<
p>
We need to get those arrest reports, all of them, so we can see what else is going on here. This is all very fishy to me.
<
p>
They were at the residence for the THIRD time that night. I’m sure they agreed to turn down the music the first two times too…
<
p>
<
blockquote> As the Supreme Court put it, HN8″it is difficult to conceive of a warrantless home arrest that would not be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the underlying offense is extremely minor.
<
blockquote>
<
p>
He wasn’t arrested for not turning them music down, he was arrested for inciting a riot. Before you go crying that his first amendment rights were violated, need I remind you that there are constitutionally accepted restrictions on that right, such as the ‘ole fashioned yelling fire in a crowded theater?
<
p>
You also forget that the police have the right to conduct warrantless entries and arrests when they have just cause. However, you are so determined see Barry Scott exonerated of any semblance of wrongdoing and see the officers crucified in the town square that you’re willing to toss away common sense and reason to meet that end.
Very loud music would enjoy less robust First Amendment protection than speech if it’s disturbing members of the public on the streets, as happened in Kiser. Barry didn’t shout fire in a crowded theater, nor did he pose any risk to public safety with his brief criticism of police conduct. And where was the riot–it takes more than cheers and applause to have a riot; otherwise sports stadia would be constant crime scenes. I am addressing myself to the known facts of Barry’s case, not inapplicable hypotheticals.
<
p>
I hope I’m not the only lawyer championing the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments here. David, where are you–I need your help! But I do have a long track record of challenging police misconduct when it affects GLBT people, esp. to the point of injury.
Just because one didn’t happen doesn’t mean his actions wouldn’t constitute inciting. Shouting and applause are not a riot, this is true; however, when those shouts are being directed at police officers who are outnumbered something like 15-1 after a guy with a sound system expresses how “We hate the police”, I’m sure they didn’t appreciate it. How about I take you a few gay guys to a party, yell “We hate gays!” over a sound system and everyone cheers. I’m sure you’d be like “well, that’s just their first amendment rights.”
<
p>
No. You’d be like “holy crap, I’m going to get beat up.”
It sure wasn’t the police officers. There was no conceivable threat to their safety so as to justify entry. They weren’t even shoved, as happened in Kiser–and that wasn’t enough.
Are you saying there has to be a threat to the safety of officers to justify waRrantless entry?
Are there no other reasons to justify entry?
<
p>
You’re kidding me right? You seem to only like half truths so you can manipulate them to make your lame and unlawerly arguments
A supposed threat to the safety of the police didn’t work in Kiser, and it isn’t even present here. The magic words are “warrant”, “exigent circumstances” or “consent” in order to justify police entry onto private property. I don’t think there’s a serious contention we had any of the three when the cops crashed the birthday party.
to stop an ongoing offense for which there was immdediate victims and it was unreasonable to get a warrant. I honestly cannot believe you are a practicing attorney.
<
p>
How would you handle loud parties in Brighton where elderly neighbors (often in same building) complain because of real noise. Tell them nothing can be done?
<
p>
Tell me how cops can legally break-up a loud party which, in their judgement, is disturbing the peace and enjoyment of the neighborhood?
<
p>
And another thing. That case you cite, did you Shepardize that?
<
p>
I did. It was overturned. Commonwealth v. A Juvenile.
Check it out.
“Overturned” is not a term one would find in Shepard’s. Was it reversed by the SJC on Fourth Amendment grounds? Was it criticized in a later opinion? Was it distinguished?
<
p>
If I overlooked something I will admit it, but I need to see the citation.
Can you please try?
If you have to resort to bad jokes, insults, and deception to make your argument, there’s no point in my continuing to argue with you. I can’t win with your rules.
<
p>
As I intially determined, Kiser is good law, although it has been distinguished to make it clear that you can’t resort to assault and battery to resist an unlawful entry. Your remedy for a clear Fourth Amendment violation would be a civil rights action, which you would win. The cops would be personally liable.
<
p>
The way noise issues are dealt with by well-trained police officers is by defusing the situation and mediating the dispute. Many college parties spill over into the streets, where the Fourth Amendment affords no protection. And most people will turn music down, and even off if asked to, but these things need to be handled diplomatically. The music was turned off on the third visit to the birthday party, before the unlawful entry triggered by a brief word of protest heard over the speakers which weren’t playing music. There was no need for the intrusion.
Here is your timeline:
<
p>
Cops tell music to be turned down. Party ignores cops.
<
p>
Cops come back, tell music to be turned down again. Party, rife with selfishness, ignores cops again.
<
p>
Cops come back a third time, and without entering the property, remember, this is what you’re describing, I’m assuming they stand on the sidewalk and yell at the people in the backyard to turn the music, which they for whatever reason adhere to this time, politely protest the police within their first amendment rights and the cops decide to beat up a gay guy.
<
p>
The first two parts we agree on. Part 3 however, I’m going to propose this as a more logically sound guess as to what happend.
<
p>
Cops come back for a third time, go into the back yard, tell Barry to turn down the music or he’s going to have to find someone to bail him out. He turns off the tunes, tells the crowd which outnumbers the police at least 15-1 “we hate the police”, which can easily be interpreted as a threat, and arrest him. He puts up a fight because he’s convinced he can neither think nor do wrong and get roughed up.
<
p>
You also don’t “mediate” a noise issue. You mediate a divorce. With noise issues, you either tell them to turn it down or people are getting locked up for the night.
We don’t know a lot now, but certain things are corroborated from multiple sources. And your scenario of the arrest has little relationship to either the police, the victim’s, or the witnesses’ version of events. The police say they were at the front of the house when the order went through to shut off the music. Barry in the back complied and made an announcement, the police version of which is contradicted by numerous witnesses. The police had to thrust themselves on the scene of the arrest–words spoken in the back yard could not have hurt them on the street in the front.
<
p>
Your assumptions about an older crowd of gay men marching through the house to beat up the police officers in the front are meant to be provocative I take it. I’m willing to engage in serious discussion, but I do not sense honest engagement of the points I am making in this exchange. Sayanora, JoeTS.
Is your rose colored glasses are allowing you to see only one side of this story. Whenever somebody brings up an alternative version of events, you say well you weren’t there.
You know whay YOU weren’t there. So YOU don’t know what happened either. All people can be asses Tudor, Gay People, Straight People, Black People, Brown People, White People, etc… All people have the ability to be assholes. You just can’t fathom to think that maybe Mr. Lost 45s, lost more than a few records and lost his temper. Which led to the police being a little pissed off at him. It must be gay bashing. That is the memo you got from P-town and you’re running with it.
<
p>
Step back and take a neutral point of view look at this thing.
Supressing warrentless searches takes into consideration all circumstances. The case cited has nothoing to do with the present incident. There was no confiscation of evidence to be supressed in P-Town case.
In case cited police used party as pre-text to go after known thug once they saw who it was. Then they were able to find illegal contraband in plain sight. Other than a loud party initiated the police presence at both incidence, the cases have no simialrity.
<
p>
Now, do police have authority to quiet down parties? Of course they do. If party goers won’t quiet down and refuse to obey do police have right to arrest for disturbing the peace? Of course they do.
<
p>
Was Bary Scott arrested for other charges not related to partry? No. Did they search the house for contraband? No.
<
p>
The facts addresed by this wanna be, albeit, lousy lawyer, are not the same.
<
p>
Tudor 586 either go to law school or go back to law school. A little knowledge is dangerous. Nothing worse than barroom lawyers.
You should be aware that the Fourth Amendment regulates “seizures” of “persons” (arrests) as well as searches on private property. Kiser turned on the question of lawful entry in the first instance; had the police been legitimately on the premises (e.g. they were invited in or had a warrant to search for weapons) they could have seized the contraband and made the arrest because the contraband was in plain view. In Barry’s situation, given the absence of contraband, there was nothing to search for, but they sure made a “seizure” of his diminuitive “person”. These facts are weaker for the government than those in Kiser.
forbid police from entering premises where there is a disturbance going on (such as loud music) which is disturbing the peace of the neighborhood? Entering after the police had been at the premises before and were assured the disturbance would stop. Entering after they have reason to believbe that their requests to turn it off have been disregarded.
<
p>
So, if your neighbors are blarring music in the middle of the night the police can’t “force” them to stop playing it unless they get a warrant? They leave the premises without curtailing the disturbance and tell you, the complaining neighbor, there is nothing they can do about it. Hmmmm, I wouldn’t want to live in that town.
<
p>
As for Kiser, the police were legitamately on the premises to investigate. They had no legitamate purpose to go beyond the doorway. The occupant agreed to turn the music down and he did. They didn’t leave then but rather forced their way into the home after the disturbance stopped.
<
p>
Totally differnt facts that Barry Scott. Third time back at his party and all the reassurances they recieved on the first 2 trips were not followed. The disturbing the peace was ongoing and the cops had the authority to go in and shut it down.
<
p>
The personal insults stay because if you are a lawyer you corrupted by your on pro-gay biases.
<
p>
Prove me wrong. Give me an example of when the police may shut down a loud party out of concern for the neighborhood’s peace and quiet?
I’d say Marilyn Manson at 200 decibels might justify a warrantless entry given the likelihood of an imminent threat to public health. You have to have “exigent circumstances” which are narrowly defined. Loud music (and free speech) are not sufficiently exigent to justify the entry onto private property. I can’t make Judge Greenberg’s analysis in Kiser any clearer for you, I’m afraid.
<
p>
I don’t think my “pro-gay biases” are the problem here, although I’ve certainly been accused of that by police union lawyers when I’ve challenged police misconduct in the past. You take your share of knocks from people who don’t like my kind when you advocate for LGBT equality. And let’s face it, homophobia did not die in Massachusetts on June 14th. In fact I think it might be enjoying a brief flourish in reaction to the decision in ConCon.
I would expect no better from you, it is your hallmark.
and extreme case of thin skinnes is yours’
once in a while, than being an asshole all of the time. You personify why BMG is losing its respect in the blogging community. I suppose you either offend people because you lack the ability to say something of value, or you’re just a jerk. Whatever your malfunction is, I’m done with you.
Says who?
You and tudor don’t count.
If this is going to be a community analogous to how a real community is, there’s going to be people who are perceived as jerks. All we need now is a town drunk and a homewrecker.
except barkalounger lawyers like you, perhaps. what’s that? you’re not a lawyer? then why the snotty challenges to the real thing when you could be doing some respectful fact finding about the lay of the law?
But I don’t think that tudor is accurate here. From his description of the cited case, it sounds like the loud party was a pretext to arrest a person and collect evidence for some other matter. From, this, we are to conlcude that police cannot break up a loud party–or arrest partygoers– without a warrant?
<
p>
If you think about it, this makes no sense. The police show up in response to a loud party complaint, and the residents can slam the door in the cops face, and allow the party to continue? The cops cannot arrest the drunken high school students holding red cups of beer?
<
p>
I don’t know how anybody knows that what happened is or is not a hate crime, but arguments such as this add no light.
and I will.
T586, I think you jumped ahead on the legal analysis a bit.
<
p>
First, Chapter 40, section 21 of the Mass G.L. lets a town or city establish ordinances, many of which, if violated constitute a misdemeanor.
<
p>
Provincetown, like most towns established a noise ordinance:
<
p>
<
p>
There are other ordinances which alternatively may apply. It’s only speculation to guess the actual alleged violation.
<
p>
Police wittnessed the misdemeanor. We know this because there were a couple of warnings. Police can reasonably ‘search and seize’ if they wittess a misdemeanor occurring. I can’t give you a cite for this off the top of my head, but it’s ‘Police Search 101’.
<
p>
Like your cited case says, “it is difficult to conceive of a warrantless home arrest that would not be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the underlying offense is extremely minor.”
<
p>
In other words, had the police started frisking folks for drugs, then perhaps that search would have been illegal — maybe — but the police entry to quiet the noise, seems, IMHO, perfectly Constitutional.
The statute you cite provides for a maximum $300 fine, with no possibility of jail time. If there’s no possibility of jail time (up to 2 1/2 years in a house of correction) there’s no misdemeanor. A noise violation is like getting a traffic ticket.
<
p>
The constitutional defect in the Kiser case was the entry onto the property–they found contraband in plain view and couldn’t prosecute. No searches or arrests that followed on the unlawful entry were valid under the Fourth Amendment.
<
p>
Loud music does not justify a warrantless entry, as Kiser holds. I’m not sure how the police witnessed a sufficiently “loud noise” in Barry’s case so as to determine that there was a “breach of the peace.” The three service calls do nothing to supply exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry. If the music didn’t give the cops an excuse to enter in Kiser, it doesn’t work in Barry’s case.
<
p>
I think if the Fourth Amendment were up for a vote on this website, it would lose. Where is Justice Scalia when we need the civil libertarian perspective? He is resolute in his defense of the Fourth Amendment.
<
p>
Do you remember why the founders put the Fourth Amendment into the bill of rights?
<
p>
Many traffic tickets are misdemeanors.
<
p>
But, what the heck, call it a misdeamnor or a civil infraction. It’s one or the other. It doesn’t change my legal analysis.
<
p>
Calling it a civil infraction just means the police couldn’t arrest him for the noise, but it does give them the reasonable means to enter to attempt to stop the noise.
<
p>
Kinda like Whren v. U.S., where a minor traffic infraction gives the cop the right, or probable cause to detain the car because the cop wittnessed the violation of a traffic regulation.
that the offense that was prosecuted makes a difference. Was it a pretext, or directly related to the loud party?
The reason for the aggressive police response is unknown, and unlikely to be known until the discovery phase of a civil rights lawsuit, if then. I’m working off the fact of no warrant, no consent, and no exigent circumstances for the entry onto private property.
<
p>
The Fourth Amendment trumps any statute or municipal ordinance; there’s no way around the requirement of 1) a warrant; 2)exigent circumstances; or 3) consent to enter. Unless you can point me to a case (subsequent to the 19th century) that opens another hole in the Fourth Amendment, you should assume the constituion means what it says.
have blown the exigency theory clear out of the water Tudor. The police seem to have a right to enter a premises for the express reason of asking a disturbance of the peace to stop. You have shown no case law supporting they don’t have that right.
And somehow forgetting the facts relevant to this specific case. The are more witnesses that have come forward to say that this was not a wild or loud party. In fact, every one of them seemed genuinely surprised each time the police came back because the party was so sedate. One of the party goers noticed that one of the officers was an a**hole right from the beginning, and he wondered why.
<
p>
In the end, the noise violation was the home owner’s responsibility, not Barry Scott’s. It seems likely the police arrested Mr. Scott because they were pissed off about what he had to say, if not a more disturbing reason. Their overindulgence in beating him up proves their response was emotion based. At one point, Mr. Scott was on the ground and was kicked so hard his sneaker flew off, and the officer who engaged in the attack stepped on Scott’s bare foot as further punishment.
<
p>
People are coming out of the woodwork to say the “noise level this”, and “the noise level that”. Do all of the many witnesses have reason to be lying? That’s quite a conspiracy to be able to get a bunch of gay men to agree on a story, and all lie. The police most certainly have cause to hide the truth however, and it seems that trouble rises all the way to the acting chief, who has denied access to reports written by other officers. In my opinion there is only one reason police would withhold a report, and that is because they are afraid of what people will think when they read it. Maybe the chief wants the reports changed so they are more in line with the submitted version of the truth he is trying to spin. These are all viable possibilities that no one seems to want to address. Not all of the people out there are as guilty as Ben LaGuer… 😉
<
p>
The most likely series of events in my eyes are as follows:
<
p>
Noise complaints were being called in for a different address, and this was the wrong one. If not, then someone was playing games, because this is not the sort of group that causes trouble. One of the officers has a hair across his ass for gay people, and he used Mr. Scott’s comment as an excuse to beat him up. Now that what is done is done, the acting police chief is trying to do damage control, since this town gets so much of its money from gay tourists.
So where is the Gay Bashing?
This seems more like the one of thousands of cop beatings that went on in this country that day. Nothing out of the ordinary.
Dog bites man case.
So let mr. scott have his day in court. It sounds like his attorney can put on a good case and have good credible witnesses. Not guilties on cop assault cases happen all the time. And perhaps Mr. Scott will make some $$$ in a civil suit.
<
p>
BUT LET THE FACTS DO THE WORK!
Don’t add to it by suggesting that this was a gay bashing. It hurts the credibility of the case. It helps the cops because they can harp on it. And everyone knows that is ridiculous and you should know that few people bother to look at details. I bitch all the time about cops on this blog. And I know there are gay bashing cops out there. But the Provincetown Police did not beat up Barry Scott because he was gay or at a gay party.
<
p>
You would be surprised how many times cops have done that sort of shit at staright cook outs.
FYI
I miss Raj.. Where is he to cut through all this back and forth and give us a quick succinct answer.
….illuminates something that I pointed out in the other thread, that abusing probable cause to arrest people for other crimes not reasonably related to the probable cause for entering are not proper. You’ll notice that I made no assertion that police had an unfettered right to enter, search and arrest. Just to enter, period. The case above does not obviate that right. As I maintained from the start, if the Police mistreated Mr. Scott in his arrest or subsequent detainment, he deserves justice. The police, however, had the right, even under Kiser, to enter the private property to address the nuisance.
<
p>
……this statement
<
p>
<
p>
Is a perfect example of how not to be an effective advocate. I never said anything about searches or seizures, just about right of entry to abate a disturbance. They are, quite simply, not the same thing. I would think long and hard about criticizing anyone else’s legal reasoning skills if I were you, because to be able to engage in meaningful legal discourse, you need to be able to listen. I’d work on that if I were you.
I think one of the reasons we talking past each other is that we’re working from different factual assumptions. You’re not addressing Barry Scott’s case, and I am. Seizure is the issue here–Barry is facing criminal charges, in the course of being arrested for which he was physically abused and injured while an invitee on private property. The Fourth Amendment only deals with searches and seizures and criminal prosecutions, as in Barry Scott’s case. If a cop were to enter upon premises to abate a nuisance (unplug the stereo) but attempt no arrest, there would be no Fourth Amendment issue. Of course the homeowner could tell them to leave and they’d be trespassing, but that would be sorted out in a nice civil proceeding without anyone ever getting bloodied. Still, if the officers saw contraband while inside, they couldn’t arrest for it, given the Kiser holding.
<
p>
The whole point of this exercise is getting the criminal charges dropped. The music was turned off voluntarily then the police stormed the premises. There should be no criminal issues except perhaps those relating to the physical violence used against Barry.
<
p>
I point out the implications of the Kiser, Mulvey, and Kirschner decisions of the Appeals Court because if you are a police officer or advise police, they need to know how to straddle the constitutional line in responding to noise violations. G.L. c. 41, Sec. 98 is a nineteenth century enactment that has been rewritten in some respects to comply with the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Declaration of Rights. It can’t be read to the letter in good faith, so as to preserve the defense of qualified immunity an officer would have in a civil rights suit, where a search or seizure is involved like here. Since the police can’t use bully tactics they should try to mediate disputes. Almost all situations can be resolved with tact and training, something the arresting officers here sadly lacked.
<
p>
I regret the offense I have given you because I am troubled by your caustic tone. It seems to me civility is not a quality which characterizes the discussion here, and for that I am sad.
The caustic tone that some take poisons the debate, and makes it less likely anything productive comes from the dialog. I myself have resorted to it, but it would be nice to see us keep focus on facts and logic here. We need to get to the bottom of this arrest, because quite frankly, the implications are sobering.
<
p>
Whether or not Barry Scott is a victim of a hate crime, he is a victim of violence, and that needs to be discussed and addressed. Hopefully, as we stand up for incidents like Barry Scott’s, it will become understood that the GLBT community is no longer an easy mark for bullies.
…great pains to make it abundantly clear that my only criticism of your other post was your statement that the police, by simply entering the premeses were, per se, offending the Constitution. I also took exception to your basing that positon on a municiple regulation that didn’t even come close to supporting your position.
<
p>
That was it. Everything else you contend to be discussing with me, I am not discussing.
<
p>
I wasn’t at the party. I have no opinion about whether what happened to Mr. Scott was appropriate because I wasn’t there. It seems to me that someone being physically harmed by an altercation with police responding to a noise disturbance is highly suspect and I encourage Mr. Scott to pursue any legal remedies he may have. That being said, I can also imagine certain exegencies that, had they occured, could tend to make Mr. Scott’s arrest appropriate. Again, I don’t know, I wasn’t there.
<
p>
And for the record, I have not used any kind of a tone that could be considered caustic. I must point out that any criticism of intellect or capactity in our discussion was started by you. If you don’t want your intellect to be challenged, I suggest you refrain from doing the same to others.
I apologize for the misunderstanding, but my focus is tightly on the warrantless arrest of Barry Scott. I’m advocating that charges against him be dismissed. Had the police handled the noise situation professionally, stopping short of a violent arrest, I wouldn’t even be here getting the stuffings knocked out of me.
<
p>
I also apologize for seeming to offend your abilities, which was never my intention. I didn’t realize you were talking about circumstances in the abstract, unrelated to a situation where a warrantless entry and arrest is made based on loud music or speech. No seizure, no Fourth Amendment problem.
<
p>
I got a little testy because simultaneously I was fending off the heckling of others less thoughtful and circumspect than you. You are not Ernie Boch III, and I’m sorry to have let my annoyance carry over like that.
<
p>
I appreciate your concern that Barry receive legal redress, a bridge we will cross when he’s no longer in criminal jeopardy.