SUPREME COURT RULES FOR OFFICERS

The U.S. Supreme Court is inclined to tolerate search warrants when
the building being searched does not conform with all the elements of
the warrant.

Justices effectively gave law officers some leeway with search
warrants in its decision on a California case.

The Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that found in favor
of a Los Angeles County couple who claim deputies' search was illegal.

The court said the warrant was valid. Deputies entered and searched
the house of a white couple even though the warrant said the suspects
were black.

The couple sued, saying deputies should not have searched their
residence because of they were supposed to be looking for black suspects.

An appellate court found in favor of the white couple and said the
lawsuit could proceed. The Supreme Court said no.

The warrant was obtained properly on information believed to be
reasonable. The warrant was still valid, even if the suspects were
not on the premises. Therefore, entry and search were legal.

The disparity was not enough to make the warrant defective.

The key issue is the validity of the warrant. If it's based on
good-faith information, it probably will stand.

However, the case in Georgia where the elderly woman shot at police
who executed a no-knock warrant is a different matter.

Based on the California case, it would seem that the no-knock warrant
was valid, as it was based on good-faith information. That the
information was defective may not have invalidated the warrant.

However, the dire consequences of entering the wrong house - the
Georgia woman was killed by police, who returned fire - still gives
us pause to question the need for no-knock warrants.

The California case leaves officers with the upper hand if all
efforts have been made to secure a valid warrant.

We do not want our officers to be hamstrung, but we want all the
elements of a search warrant to be ironclad. That way, there are no
mistakes, and our officers can do their jobs.