Pubdate: Tue, 22 May 2007
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2007 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer

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."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman