-
In Los Angeles County v. Rettele et.
al, i the United States Supreme Court reviewed a civil rights
lawsuit brought against Los Angeles County officers who
had executed a search warrant at a home that had been sold
and was no longer in possession of the subjects of the warrant.
Los Angeles County officers were investigating
a fraud and identity-theft ring that involved 4 African-American
subjects,
one of whom was known to possess a registered handgun.
The investigation was conducted between September and December
of 2001. In early December, the investigator in the case
obtained a search warrant authorizing the search of two
residences and three of the four subjects. In support
of
the search of the house in question, the investigator
cited motor vehicle records, an outstanding warrant, internet
phone records and mailing address listings. What the investigator,
Watters, did not know was that the house had been sold
in
September and was now occupied by three white residents,
Max Rettele, his girlfriend, Judy Sadler and Sadler’s
17 year-old son Chase Hall.
“
On the morning of December 19, Watters briefed six other
deputies in preparation for the search of the houses.
Watters informed them they would be searching for three
African-American
suspects, one of whom owned a registered handgun. The
possibility a suspect would be armed caused the deputies
concern for
their own safety. Watters had not obtained special permission
for a night search, so he could not execute the warrant
until 7 a.m. Around 7:15 Watters and six other deputies
knocked on the door and announced their presence. Chase
Hall answered. The deputies entered the house after ordering
Hall to lie face down on the ground.
`The deputies’ announcement
awoke Rettele and Sadler. The deputies entered their bedroom
with guns drawn and ordered
them to get out of their bed and to show their hands. They
protested that they were not wearing clothes. Rettele stood
up and attempted to put on a pair of sweatpants, but deputies
told him not to move. Sadler also stood up and attempted,
without success, to cover herself with a sheet. Rettele
and Sadler were held at gunpoint for one to two minutes
before Rettele was allowed to retrieve a robe for Sadler.
He was then permitted to dress. Rettele and Sadler left
the bedroom within three to four minutes to sit on the couch
in the living room.
By that time the deputies realized they
had made a mistake. They apologized to Rettele and Sadler
thanked them for not
becoming upset, and left within five minutes. They proceeded
to the other house the warrant authorized them to search,
where they found three suspects.”
Rettele, Sadler and Sadler’s son filed a civil rights
lawsuit alleging that their 4th Amendment rights had been
violated by a reckless execution of the warrant. The recklessness
was based on the failure to verify ownership records prior
to the execution of the warrant and the failure to immediately
recognize the mistake when they observed white subjects
in the house rather than the black subjects they were seeking.
In finding that the officers’ actions
did not violate the 4th Amendment, the Supreme Court first
noted that in
today’s society mixed-race households are common.
Thus, the fact that officers immediately saw white subjects
did not preclude the possibility that the subjects they
were seeking were also present and posed a threat to the
officers. The Court noted that previous decisions allowed
officers to take “reasonable action to secure the
premises and to ensure their own safety and the efficacy
of the search.” ii The
Court concluded: “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
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.” 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. There is no accusation that
the detention
here was prolonged. The deputies left the home less than15
minutes after arriving. The detention was shorter and
less restrictive than the 2- to 3-hour handcuff detention
upheld
in Mena. 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.
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.”
CITATIONS:
i Los Angeles
County v. Rettele et al., 550 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1989 (2007).
ii See, Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981); and Muehler v. Mena, 544
U.S. 93 (2005).
|
