Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit in Mistaken Search

Baltimore Sun ^ | May 22, 2007

[Wolfie]

Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit in Mistaken Search

Washington, DC -- Mistakes sometimes happen, the Supreme Court said yesterday, and threw 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 might have been an error, the justices said, but it did not violate their rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

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 Sander 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 their home in Lancaster, about 50 miles north of Los Angeles, they did not know the suspects had moved out three months earlier. Rettele had bought the home in September and lived there with Sadler and her 17-year old son.

[johncatl]

A search warrant on information that is three months old? Where is the exercise of due care and diligence in that? Idiot Supremes.

[billorites]

"a white couple in Southern California who were rousted from bed and held naked at gunpoint by deputies..."

There are folks looking for this kinda thing on craigslist.

[jammer]

So...under that principle, “mistakes happen”, a surgeon who removes the wrong leg, or a pharmacist who dispenses the wrong drug, or an architect who screws up a hotel in Kansas City is not liable anymore? Nahhh. Only government people aren’t accountable.

[Wolfie]

It’s safe to say such “mistakes” would not be allowed in the Justices’ neighborhoods.

[RangerM]

Excuse me, but how were a “white couple” rousted from bed, when they were looking for “several black suspects”?

I would think that as soon as they saw the couple, someone might say, “oops, sorry about that”, and while the man might get out of bed, to escort the police out of his residence, I see no reason for them to be “held at gunpoint”.

[sgtbono2002]

What part of “Whites have no rights” dont you understand?

[Hazcat]

What was the vote and was there a dissenting opinion?

[RangerM]

While I understand your sentiment (since I acknowledge the existence of “reverse reciscm/descrimination”), I don’t agree that “whites have no rights”.

I would feel the same way (as listed in my previous post), had the suspects been white, and the couple been black.

[sergeantdave]

So next time I make an error in the 1040 and the IRS fines me thousands, I can argue “mistakes happen.”

Where in bloody hell is the “mistakes happen” escape clause in the constitution? I want to emblazon it on a plaque in gold letters.

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

I’m sorry, but on the limited information given (and I refuse to “register” to ANY news website, particularly the Baltimore Sun) this doesn’t pass the stink test.

My guess is, (and I’m probably correct) this “white couple” rousted out of bed in the dead of night, are your typical California Liberals who refused to settle for a simple apology (and quite probably more than adequate compensation) from the police. Together with their “shyster lawyer”, they thought they had just hit the MEGA-Lottery and would be set for life. The SCOTUS probably felt that they should have settled this matter long ago.

But like I said, I refuse to register to any news website, so there may very well be more to this story. Then again, there may not be and my guess is correct.

[sgtbono2002]

You would feel the same way, but would the Supreme Court?

[RangerM]

I looked at another site.

Apparently, the police were using a 3-month old search warrant. The suspects had previously lived there, but had moved out in that time.

The police were met at the door by the woman’s (the couple wasn’t married), 17-year old son. Clue #1.

I didn’t see what the son may have told the police, but the article did say he was “escorted to the ground” by the police.

The police entered the bedroom and saw the (white) couple in bed. Clue #2

The couple were ordered (presumably at gunpoint) out of bed and held there for about 1-2 minutes (definitely at gunpoint). The man apparently tried to save the embarrassment of the woman by keeping the covers over her (they were under the covers to start with), but was ordered not to (under the guise of safety of the officers).

Apparently the police apologized, and the couple were (much) more than nice about it, at the time. It wasn’t until later that they sued.

I agree that they may have had a (convenient) change of heart (perhaps at the encouragement of a lawyer), but that does NOT excuse what happened.

[RangerM]

They should, and if they don’t, then they should be removed from the bench and disbarred (sp?).

[razorback-bert]

Is this for real?

Unreal!

[sgtbono2002]

Never happen.

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

I never said it does NOT excuse what happened. But the police DID apologize and the couple (in so many words) accepted the apology at the time. It should have ended there.

And I think THAT is what the SCOTUS was trying to say with their ruling. They in effect said “We will not agree with this money grab scheme of yours.”

[RangerM]

Sorry, I wasn’t suggesting that you were excusing the police. My point was that the police are not immune from prosecution(as they claimed), once the occupants of the house have/could have been established. (Clue #1 or #2 of my previous post should have met this criteria)

The fact that SCOTUS would “not agree with this money grab”, seems extraneous.

SCOTUS’ role in this was determining whether or not the police actions constituted an “unlawful search and seizure”

I don’t know that SCOTUS decides civil cases (I know they shouldn’t). The question in front of them was one of 4th amendment rights, not assessing punitive damages.

While I don’t believe a “mistake” could result in violation of 4th amendment rights (in this particular case), the entire episode didn’t have to go as far as it did, once Clue #1 and #2 have been made. Going farther than that, seems excessive to me, but I invite others’ opinions.

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

I think we’re both arguing the same point here.
The police made a mistake. (In fact, they made a few mistakes, the least of which was relying on three month old data for their search warrant.)
However, once they realized their mistake, and ascertained that the occupants of the house were not in fact involved in drug activities, nor were they the occupants of the house three months ago, they made their apologies and those apologies were accepted by the couple at that time. It should have ended then and there.
How it got all the way to the Supreme Court still baffles me. They must have gone through (quite a few) lesser courts in the process and those lesser courts must have ruled in the police’s favor for this to have ended up in the SCOTUS. And THAT (I think) is really what the SCOTUS was trying to say in their ruling. Mistakes were made, but in this particular case, the police apologized and it should have ended there.

[VRing]

“We will not agree with this money grab scheme of yours.”

No, what they said was that as long as a person in a black robe signs the right piece of paper the pigs can eyeball your naked wife as much as they want. And there’s nothing you can do about it.