The REAL POLICE FORUM is a leading community of police officers and law enforcement professionals. The forum includes police chat and restricted areas for police officers only. The ask-a-cop area allows you to ask questions to real police officers and only verified police are allowed to respond. REALPOLICE.com also features law enforcement jobs, news, training materials and expert articles.MikeG
02-22-12, 11:54 PM
Supreme Court says police cannot be sued for getting possibly invalid warrant - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/supreme-court-says-police-cannot-be-sued-for-getting-possibly-invalid-warrant/2012/02/22/gIQAbufJTR_story.html)
Holy crap. The fact that it actually has to go to SCOTUS because 9th Circus is a bunch of idiots. This detective was personally sued though he seemed to follow all official procedures and take all necessary actions to lawfully execute what he perceived to be his duty.
Take notice for the election: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented from the majority.
The warrant went through supervisor, DA and magistrate. All approved. I don't mind it so much when a defective warrant costs them a case or evidence. That's a job performance issue, though. I wouldn't have minded (well, yes I would, but I'd understand) if she sued the county - again, it's the County's job to manage performance and take responsibility for official effups. But this seems like a clear case where the detective never lost his color of authority/law. It's not like he lost his temper and acted beyond what he was authorized to do. Crappy warrant or not, it was still valid and official with a chain of command/process associated with it. Let the county deal with it as a liability associated with a sanctioned, official act.
I guess she was smart enough not to sue the magistrate as I think that might have hit too close to home even for 9th.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented from the majority.
“Qualified immunity properly affords police officers protection so long as they conduct is objectively reasonable,” Sotomayor said. “But it is not objectively reasonable for police investigating a specific, non-gang related assault committed with a particular firearm to search for all evidence related to ‘any street gang,’ ‘photographs ... which may depict evidence of criminal activity,’ and all firearms.”
In a separate dissent, Kagan pointed out that gang membership does not violate California law, “so the officers could not search for gang paraphilia just to establish Bowen’s ties to the Crips.” Kagan, however, said she did agree with the majority on the police’s decision to look for other weapons besides the one used in the shooting.
In other words Kagan said it was okay to fish for guns, but not gang membership. Why do I have the feeling that her views on firearms don't really match the majority writers?
BTW, if the victim mentioned anything about gang membership I would think the warrant mentioning it would be okay. In Arizona, it's an aggravating factor in many crimes. Dunno about CA but I'd bet they are splitting hairs on "membership" being illegal. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the DA would add the aggravating factors of gang membership even in DV assault. Let the judge or jury toss them.
Holy crap. The fact that it actually has to go to SCOTUS because 9th Circus is a bunch of idiots. This detective was personally sued though he seemed to follow all official procedures and take all necessary actions to lawfully execute what he perceived to be his duty.
Take notice for the election: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented from the majority.
The warrant went through supervisor, DA and magistrate. All approved. I don't mind it so much when a defective warrant costs them a case or evidence. That's a job performance issue, though. I wouldn't have minded (well, yes I would, but I'd understand) if she sued the county - again, it's the County's job to manage performance and take responsibility for official effups. But this seems like a clear case where the detective never lost his color of authority/law. It's not like he lost his temper and acted beyond what he was authorized to do. Crappy warrant or not, it was still valid and official with a chain of command/process associated with it. Let the county deal with it as a liability associated with a sanctioned, official act.
I guess she was smart enough not to sue the magistrate as I think that might have hit too close to home even for 9th.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan dissented from the majority.
“Qualified immunity properly affords police officers protection so long as they conduct is objectively reasonable,” Sotomayor said. “But it is not objectively reasonable for police investigating a specific, non-gang related assault committed with a particular firearm to search for all evidence related to ‘any street gang,’ ‘photographs ... which may depict evidence of criminal activity,’ and all firearms.”
In a separate dissent, Kagan pointed out that gang membership does not violate California law, “so the officers could not search for gang paraphilia just to establish Bowen’s ties to the Crips.” Kagan, however, said she did agree with the majority on the police’s decision to look for other weapons besides the one used in the shooting.
In other words Kagan said it was okay to fish for guns, but not gang membership. Why do I have the feeling that her views on firearms don't really match the majority writers?
BTW, if the victim mentioned anything about gang membership I would think the warrant mentioning it would be okay. In Arizona, it's an aggravating factor in many crimes. Dunno about CA but I'd bet they are splitting hairs on "membership" being illegal. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the DA would add the aggravating factors of gang membership even in DV assault. Let the judge or jury toss them.