{"id":1007,"date":"2007-05-22T07:56:49","date_gmt":"2007-05-22T05:39:19","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2007-05-22T05:39:19","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=1007","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS decides that police searching the wrong house had qualified immunity (decided on the cert papers without argument)"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Los Angeles County v. Rattelle<\/a>, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5900 (May 21, 2007), decided on the cert papers alone, the Supreme Court held that officers searching the wrong house with a search warrant had qualified immunity from suit, even though they had reason to believe, as soon as they were inside, they likely were in the wrong house. “Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost.”<\/p>\n

The officers had a search warrant from a prior drug deal, and they knew one suspect had a gun. When the search warrant was obtained and executed four months later, it turned out that the prior occupants had moved and new tenants were there. The officers entered and immediately noticed that the occupants were a different race than the persons being sought. Nevertheless, the occupants were ordered out of bed long enough for the police to search to be sure there was no gun, and they apparently, within 2-4 minutes, told the occupants to get dressed.<\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit held, 186 Fed. App. 765 (9th Cir. 2006), posted here<\/a>, that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was readily apparent they were in the wrong place, and ordering the occupants out of bed was unreasonable.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court reversed and held that the officers acted reasonably under the circumstances, including ordering the occupants out of bed and searching it, and they were entitled to qualified immunity. [Notably, the plaintiffs did not challenge the validity of the warrant for staleness since the persons sought had moved four months before the search.]<\/p>\n

There is no syllabus, being a per curiam [Souter would deny cert, and Ginsburg and Stevens concurred in the decision].<\/p>\n

In Michigan v. Summers<\/em>, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), this Court held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband may “detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” Id., <\/em>at 705. In weighing whether the search in Summers was reasonable the Court first found that “detention represents only an incremental intrusion on personal liberty when the search of a home has been authorized by a valid warrant.” Id.,<\/em> at 703. Against that interest, it balanced “preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found”; “minimizing the risk of harm to the officers”; and facilitating “the orderly completion of the search.” Id., <\/em>at 702-703; see Muehler v. Mena<\/em>, 544 U.S. 93 (2005).<\/p>\n

In executing a search warrant officers may take reasonable action to secure the premises and to ensure their own safety and the efficacy of the search. Id., <\/em>at 98-100; see also id., <\/em>at 103 (KENNEDY, J., concurring); Summers, supra<\/em>, at 704-705. The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is an objective one. Graham v. Connor<\/em>, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989) (addressing the reasonableness of a seizure of the person). Unreasonable actions include the use of excessive force or restraints that cause unnecessary pain or are imposed for a prolonged and unnecessary period of time. Mena, supra<\/em>, at 100; Graham, supra<\/em>, at 396-399.<\/p>\n

The orders by the police to the occupants, in the context of this lawful search, were permissible, and perhaps necessary, to protect the safety of the deputies. Blankets and bedding can conceal a weapon, and one of the suspects was known to own a firearm, factors which underscore this point. The Constitution does not require an officer to ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may sleep with a weapon within reach. The reports are replete with accounts of suspects sleeping close to weapons. See United States v. Enslin<\/em>, 327 F.3d 788, 791 (CA9 2003) (“When [the suspect] put his hands in the air and began to sit up, his movement shifted the covers and the marshals could see a gun in the bed next to him”); see also United States v. Jones<\/em>, 336 F.3d 245, 248 (CA3 2003) (suspect kept a 9-millimeter Luger under his pillow while he slept); United States v. Hightower<\/em>, 96 F.3d 211 (CA7 1996) (suspect kept a loaded five-shot handgun under his pillow); State v. Willis,<\/em> 36,759-KA, p. 3 (La. App. 4\/9\/03), 843 So. 2d 592, 595 (officers “pulled back the bed covers and found a .38 caliber Model 10 Smith and Wesson revolver located near where defendant’s left hand had been”); State v. Kypreos<\/em>, 115 Wn. App. 207, 61 P. 3d 352 (2002) (suspect kept a handgun in the bed).<\/p>\n

The deputies needed a moment to secure the room and ensure that other persons were not close by or did not present a danger. Deputies were not required to turn their backs to allow Rettele and Sadler to retrieve clothing or to cover themselves with the sheets. Rather, “the risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.” Summers<\/em>, 452 U.S., at 702-703.<\/p>\n

This is not to say, of course, that the deputies were free to force Rettele and Sadler to remain motionless and standing for any longer than necessary. We have recognized that “special circumstances, or possibly a prolonged detention” might render a search unreasonable. See id., <\/em>at 705, n. 21. There is no accusation that the detention here was prolonged. The deputies left the home less than 15 minutes after arriving. The detention was shorter and less restrictive than the 2- to 3-hour handcuff detention upheld in Mena. See <\/em>544 U.S., at 100. And there is no allegation that the deputies prevented Sadler and Rettele from dressing longer than necessary to protect their safety. Sadler was unclothed for no more than two minutes, and Rettele for only slightly more time than that. Sadler testified that once the police were satisfied that no immediate threat was presented, “they wanted us to get dressed and they were pressing us really fast to hurry up and get some clothes on.” Deposition of Judy Lorraine Sadler in No. CV-0206262-RSWL (RNBX) (CD Cal., June 10, 2003), Doc. 26, Exh. 4, p. 55.<\/p>\n

The Fourth Amendment allows warrants to issue on probable cause, a standard well short of absolute certainty. Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost. Officers executing search warrants on occasion enter a house when residents are engaged in private activity; and the resulting frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation may be real, as was true here. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the Fourth Amendment is not violated.<\/p>\n

As respondents’ constitutional rights were not violated, “there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” Saucier v. Katz<\/em>, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The briefs are not available online, at least not yet, because this case was decided on the cert papers, without full briefing. <\/p>\n

The LA Times article is here<\/a>, and an excellent editorial piece entitled “Naked Truth” is here<\/a>:<\/p>\n

AS RESIDENTS OF the Los Angeles area don’t have to be told, law enforcement officers sometimes misbehave in ways that violate individual rights and call for severe sanctions. But a ruling Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court is a reminder that it’s unwise to make a federal case out of every misstep by the police.<\/p>\n

Dec. 19, 2001, was a bad day for Max Rettele and Judy Sadler. They were in bed in their Lancaster home \u2014 and not wearing pajamas \u2014 early that morning when L.A. County sheriff’s deputies arrived with drawn guns and a search warrant. The deputies ordered the couple to get out of bed and show their hands, and at first wouldn’t allow them to cover their nakedness.<\/p>\n

A few minutes later, the deputies were apologizing to the now-clothed couple. Although the address on the warrant matched the couple’s residence, the targets of the search \u2014 three suspected identity thieves \u2014 had moved out before Rettele and Sadler had moved in. Also, the suspects were African Americans; Rettele and Sadler are white.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The post on the Volokh Conspiracy blog is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

At least the officers apologized before leaving. I’ve read cases where it was alleged that the officers did not even apologize for breaking down the door to the wrong house in the middle of the night.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1007","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1007"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1007\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}