You are at home on a Friday night, watching TV. There's a loud knock at your front door. You ask who is at your door. The person(s) continue knocking, only louder. You again ask who it is. They continue knocking and tell you to open the door. You threaten to shoot them if they don't leave yet, they continue knocking and telling you to open the door. You aim your shotgun at the door and fire through it, striking the individual on the other side of the door. Were you justified in shooting? Were they a threat to you?
Recently an elderly man did exactly that. He was charged with homicide when the teenager on the other side of the door was killed. The teenager allegedly went to the wrong house to get his sibling to come home.
The man's defense (the case is still pending) is that under the "Castle Doctrine" he has the right to defend his home against unlawful and forcible entry, and that the porch is part of the "curtilage" of the property.
So, exactly WHAT is the "Castle Doctrine"?
A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used. The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
The term 'castle' was defined in 1763 by Prime MinisterWilliam Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter." In this case it was used to protect the citizens against unlawful entry by the King's representatives. It required that they must have a "proper warrant" to enter the domicile of subjects' homes.
In the United States, the Castle Doctrine was extended beyond the "castle" or home. It led also to the term "No duty to retreat". But, again, we will cover that one in a later blog post.
Today, the Castle Doctrine usually is applied to a person's residence or domicile (including curtilage), business or vehicle. It is used to protect the victim from criminal or civil prosecution when applied appropriately.
The state of Tennessee does not specifically use the term "Castle Doctrine". However, the TCA is specific in it's definition of when a person may use deadly force to protect their home, business, dwelling or vehicle:
Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.”
Typical conditions that apply to most castle doctrine laws include:
An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully or forcibly enter an occupied residence, business, or vehicle.
The intruder must be acting unlawfully (the castle doctrine does not allow a right to use force against officers of the law, acting in the course of their legal duties).
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home. Some states apply the Castle Doctrine if the occupant(s) of the home reasonably believe the intruder intends to commit a lesser felony such as arson or burglary.
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion; or, provoked/instigated an intruder's threat or use of deadly force. In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home: must be there legally; must not be fugitives from the law themselves, or aiding/abetting other fugitives; and must not use force upon an officer of the law performing a legal duty.
The "Castle Doctrine" also does not apply if the person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person; (2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom force is used.
Business" means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business.
"Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people
"Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence
"Vehicle" means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.
Referring back to the scenario at the beginning of this article, would the situation have changed had the teenager kicked in the door? Should the elderly man have waited until the teenager crossed the "threshold" of the residence? It's now a matter for the courts to decide.
Comments