News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Rights Not Violated In Home Search, Justices Rule |
Title: | US CA: Rights Not Violated In Home Search, Justices Rule |
Published On: | 2007-05-22 |
Source: | Los Angeles Times (CA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-12 05:38:37 |
RIGHTS NOT VIOLATED IN HOME SEARCH, JUSTICES RULE
A Southern California Couple Had Been Rousted From Bed And Held Naked
At Gunpoint By Deputies
WASHINGTON -- Mistakes sometimes happen when police conduct home
searches, the Supreme Court said Monday in throwing out a lawsuit
brought by a white couple in Southern California who were rousted
from bed and held naked at gunpoint by deputies looking for several
black suspects.
The search of Max Rettele and his girlfriend, Judy Sadler, in their
bedroom may have been an error, and it was certainly embarrassing to
them, the justices said. But it did not violate their rights under
the 4th Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and
seizures," they added.
Police obtain search warrants based on probable evidence, not
"absolute certainty," the court said in an unsigned opinion. "Valid
warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele
and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost."
In December 2001, Los Angeles County sheriffs were looking for four
black suspects in an identity-theft scheme. One of them was known to
have a gun. When the deputies set out to raid a home in Lancaster,
they did not know the suspects had moved three months earlier.
Rettele had bought the home in September and lived there with Sadler
and her 17-year-old son.
At 7 a.m., seven deputies with guns drawn came to the door and were
let in by the teenager. He was ordered to lie face down.
The deputies then entered the bedroom and ordered Rettele and Sadler
to get up and to show their hands. They protested they were not
wearing clothes, but the officers insisted they stand naked next to
the bed for a minute or two.
After a few minutes, the deputies admitted they had made a mistake,
apologized and left.
Rettele, a civilian employee of the Defense Department, and Sadler, a
real estate manager, filed suit against the police, contending the
search was an unreasonable invasion of their privacy.
A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled for the police and rejected
their claim, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in
a 2-1 decision and said a jury should decide whether police violated
the couple's constitutional rights.
"After taking one look at [Rettele and Sadler], the deputies should
have realized that [they] were not the subjects of the search warrant
and did not pose a threat to the deputies' safety," said Judge Harry
Pregerson, a veteran judge on the 9th Circuit. A jury might conclude
the search was "unnecessarily painful, degrading or prolonged," he said.
Los Angeles County lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court and argued
that deputies should not be subject to suits for carrying out a
lawful search of a home.
Without bothering to hear arguments in the case, the Supreme Court
agreed and ruled for the deputies.
The couple's "constitutional rights were not violated," the court
said in Los Angeles County vs. Rettele. The deputies "believed a
suspect might be armed.... 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."
As for the innocent victims, "the resulting frustration,
embarrassment and humiliation may be real, as was true here," the
court said in its seven-page opinion. Nonetheless, "when officers
execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect
themselves from harm, however, the 4th Amendment is not violated."
Only Justice David H. Souter dissented from the order to reject the
suit. In a separate statement, Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg concurred in the outcome without joining the court's opinion.
John Burton, a Pasadena lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, said
his clients had left California and were living in Kansas.
"I think this means we are in a dark period for the Supreme Court,"
Burton said. "This was a case of incompetent officers finding
themselves in the home of completely innocent people, and knowing
they are not suspects, orders them out of bed stark naked. This is
bullying, and it needs to be reined in."
A Southern California Couple Had Been Rousted From Bed And Held Naked
At Gunpoint By Deputies
WASHINGTON -- Mistakes sometimes happen when police conduct home
searches, the Supreme Court said Monday in throwing out a lawsuit
brought by a white couple in Southern California who were rousted
from bed and held naked at gunpoint by deputies looking for several
black suspects.
The search of Max Rettele and his girlfriend, Judy Sadler, in their
bedroom may have been an error, and it was certainly embarrassing to
them, the justices said. But it did not violate their rights under
the 4th Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and
seizures," they added.
Police obtain search warrants based on probable evidence, not
"absolute certainty," the court said in an unsigned opinion. "Valid
warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele
and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost."
In December 2001, Los Angeles County sheriffs were looking for four
black suspects in an identity-theft scheme. One of them was known to
have a gun. When the deputies set out to raid a home in Lancaster,
they did not know the suspects had moved three months earlier.
Rettele had bought the home in September and lived there with Sadler
and her 17-year-old son.
At 7 a.m., seven deputies with guns drawn came to the door and were
let in by the teenager. He was ordered to lie face down.
The deputies then entered the bedroom and ordered Rettele and Sadler
to get up and to show their hands. They protested they were not
wearing clothes, but the officers insisted they stand naked next to
the bed for a minute or two.
After a few minutes, the deputies admitted they had made a mistake,
apologized and left.
Rettele, a civilian employee of the Defense Department, and Sadler, a
real estate manager, filed suit against the police, contending the
search was an unreasonable invasion of their privacy.
A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled for the police and rejected
their claim, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals revived it in
a 2-1 decision and said a jury should decide whether police violated
the couple's constitutional rights.
"After taking one look at [Rettele and Sadler], the deputies should
have realized that [they] were not the subjects of the search warrant
and did not pose a threat to the deputies' safety," said Judge Harry
Pregerson, a veteran judge on the 9th Circuit. A jury might conclude
the search was "unnecessarily painful, degrading or prolonged," he said.
Los Angeles County lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court and argued
that deputies should not be subject to suits for carrying out a
lawful search of a home.
Without bothering to hear arguments in the case, the Supreme Court
agreed and ruled for the deputies.
The couple's "constitutional rights were not violated," the court
said in Los Angeles County vs. Rettele. The deputies "believed a
suspect might be armed.... 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."
As for the innocent victims, "the resulting frustration,
embarrassment and humiliation may be real, as was true here," the
court said in its seven-page opinion. Nonetheless, "when officers
execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect
themselves from harm, however, the 4th Amendment is not violated."
Only Justice David H. Souter dissented from the order to reject the
suit. In a separate statement, Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth
Bader Ginsburg concurred in the outcome without joining the court's opinion.
John Burton, a Pasadena lawyer who represented the plaintiffs, said
his clients had left California and were living in Kansas.
"I think this means we are in a dark period for the Supreme Court,"
Burton said. "This was a case of incompetent officers finding
themselves in the home of completely innocent people, and knowing
they are not suspects, orders them out of bed stark naked. This is
bullying, and it needs to be reined in."
Member Comments |
No member comments available...