Posted on 03/22/2005 11:26:39 AM PST by Indy Pendance
WASHINGTON, March 22 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a California case holding someone in handcuffs while police execute a search warrant is constitutional.
A majority opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the handcuffing did not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on "unreasonable" searches and seizures.
Rehnquist noted the high court ruled in 1981 someone could be detained during a search, and using handcuffs when the search involved gang members was "reasonable."
Police officers raided a residence in Simi Valley, Calif., Feb. 3, 1998, looking for guns and evidence of gang membership. Iris Mena was asleep in her bed when officers placed her in handcuffs at gunpoint.
Police were looking for a member of the West Side Locos. Mena was later released.
She filed suit in federal court saying the handcuffing and interrogation of her immigration status were unconstitutional. The lower federal court agreed, but that ruling was thrown out by the Supreme Court.
There were no dissents, though four justices concurred using different reasoning.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals shot down again.
Hard to believe there were no dissenters.
This is nothing but common sense.
Also hard to believe that it even had to go to the SCOTUS.
I do have a question. It's a search warrant for property, not an arrest warrant for a person. Shouldn't the person be free to go while the search is conducted?
Not after the 9th got their hands on the case.
Go figure.
It seems to me, if a search warrant is issued, some may try to hinder the police and cause trouble. I don't think they're being detained, just restrained so the police can search.
What does the Fourth Amendment even do any more? All they have to do is shout the magic keyword "drug" or "terror" and all bets are off. It's been that way for a while now.
It's hard to believe the SCOTUS's willingness to micro-manage everything police do. "Constitutionality" is being stretched and trivialized to the point where it will mean nothing.
If it's a search warrant for property, kinda makes sense that those on the property be restrained to prevent trouble or screwing with evidence. They should, however, be allowed to leave unless specifically arrested.
A search warrant could also be for a person. This warrant addressed indications of gang membership: cops could conceivably check people there for, say, gang tattoos or contraband in pockets. Might make sense to restrain the people there until they have been searched accordingly.
Heckuva line to walk.
I just read the order. It looks like this was just a continuation of another power the Supreme Court earlier granted to the government. The police can detain anyone while a search is being conducted without justification, in whatever manner they see fit. The police did not use minimal force since they could have addressed all the concerns pointed out in the ruling by simply making her stay in the back yard under guard.
It also looks like the 9th and/or her lawyers screwed up, as they should have addressed the issue that her detention went beyond the time necessary to complete the search, meaning she was just being detained not in conjuction with an active search. She might have won on that.
BTW, it turned out she was a legal resident, not an illegal alien.
Thanks for the update.
No, what I mean is there is no astericks beside the Fourth Amendment that grants any exceptions to its limit on government powers. The individual is not the danger. The organized government with unchecked power is the real danger. The founding fathers saw that and did everything they could to prevent it. And we selectively ignore the Constitution at our own peril. That's what I meant.
With this I would expect it to be Standard Operating Procedure for all cops everywhere to cuff anyone near any scene of any search.
Once again, all people are to be considered guilty until proven innocent. The cops already have the right, and need, to remove from the scene or cuff anyone who interferes with a search. They do not need this decision that allows them to arrest anyone who is not interfering.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.