The U.S. Supreme Court missed a chance this week to let police know they might be held responsible for botched searches.
The case involved a California couple who were rousted from bed in December 2001 by police officers who had entered their Lancaster home. The cops, who had a legal warrant, were investigating a fraud and identity theft ring.
The three men the police were looking for were African-American; the couple were white. Nevertheless, Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies ordered the naked duo out of bed and detained them momentarily.
After a few minutes, the officers allowed the couple to dress. Minutes later, the police realized their mistake, apologized to the man and woman and left.
The couple eventually sued, claiming their civil rights were violated and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the case to move forward.
On Monday, though, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that while the circumstances of the search were regrettable, they didn't violate the Constitution.
The justices did admit that, "Officers executing search warrants on occasion enter a house when residents are engaged in private activity, and the resulting frustration, embarrassment and humiliation may be real, as was true here." Yet the court held that the couple did not have a right to sue.
It may indeed be true that the Lancaster case is not comparable to instances in which fatalities or other serious calamities have resulted from police mistakes during court-authorized searches. After all, it doesn't appear in this case the police did anything wrong -- and embarrassment and inconvenience shouldn't guarantee a winning ticket in the lawsuit lottery.
But why not let a jury decide whether the police made an innocent mistake or were somehow negligent in serving the warrant -- or a judge decide whether the allegation is frivolous? Such cases serve to create powerful incentives for the police to ensure they act properly while executing their life-and-death powers.
RSS