Supreme Court weighs suit against deputy in Los Angeles house raid

[LAGC]

Reporting from Washington—
The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether Los Angeles sheriff's deputies went too far when they obtained a search warrant and seized all the guns from a home in South Los Angeles where a wanted violent gang member was thought to be living.

Usually, police officers are protected from lawsuits if they enter a home with a search warrant issued by a judge.
..
..
The case of Messerschmidt vs. Millender brought together some strange bedfellows when it reached the Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Assn. and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. joined in supporting the Millenders, whose personal guns were seized. The Obama administration joined with Los Angeles County in arguing for the suit against the detective to be dismissed.

The 4th Amendment gives people a "right to be secure" in their homes and says "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause … and particularly describing … the persons and things to be seized." The 9th Circuit recited the words of the amendment in upholding the Millenders' suit against Messerschmidt.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20111206,0,6222586.story

While I tend to sympathize with the ACLU and NRA on this, I'm not sure the individual cop is the prime person to blame here. Sounds like the judge who signed off on the bogus search warrant should be the primary focus, if anything the county perhaps ought to be liable for violating an innocent family's Fourth Amendment rights. (Although the detective really should have exercised better discretion and left the guns alone once it was established that the suspect didn't live there any more, and wasn't in control of them.)

I presume the innocent family who was raided got their firearms back unmolested? The article doesn't say...

It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this indeed.

[WingDinger]

1. How many timnes must I explain this? You have no fourth amendment right,

till you go to court. As one of the cops that shoved their guns in my face at midnite said: We are coming in. We dont need a warrant.
AND, we knew you were guilty, when you didnt immediately let us in.

There are myriad ways to ignore the need for a warrant.

Sure, you can get some evidence thrown out, IF YOU ARE LUCKy, when you get to court. Otherwise, you will do whatever the cops say, or you WILL get hurt. Till court.

[AzWorker]

2. Blaming judge vs. Detective....

"I'm not sure the individual cop is the prime person to blame here. Sounds like the judge who signed off on the bogus search warrant should be the primary focus..."


Typicallly, the judge is signing the warrant based on the information the officer has supplied in the sworn affidavit. If the affidavit was weak on it's face or contained information known to be incorrect then that is a serious problem.

[SteveM]

3. This kind of crap has been encouraged by the W.O.D....

"But the justices have been wary of allowing lawsuits against police officers or federal agents who carry out a search once it has been approved by a magistrate."

Judges have held that a place can be wrecked, residents abused, animals shot, etc., in the course of effecting LEO policies. This outlook was (and remains at least somewhat) popular during the 1990s when carrying out aggressive drug-raids.

The then-head of the Political Science Department at the University of Florida was roughed up and his place flipped as a result of a "drug raid" on the wrong address.