Quote: |
Originally Posted by plschwartz Mulder:
Is this summary incorrect?
In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. | Yes, the summary is totally incorrect. Here's the case if you care to read it all (I did): http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator...04/024532p.pdf
If you read it, the warrant had an accompanying affadavit. You have to understand that these warrants are on legal forms where there is only enough room to write so many words (I run into the same problem) so you attach additional information. These liberal morons (the other two judges) completely ignored this fact and refused to incorporate the affadavit in the warrant, which clearly requested that all persons on the premises be searched. This was the search of a long time investigation of a known drug dealer. This is what Alito wrote in dissent: Quote:
First, there is no doubt that the search warrant application sought permission to search all occupants of the premises. Indeed, the affidavit made this request in three separate paragraphs. Paragraph 17, after asking for authorization to search John Doe’s home and car, added: "The search should also include all occupants of the residence as the information developed shows that [John Doe] has frequent visitors that purchase methamphetamine. These persons may be on the premises at the time of the execution of the search warrant and may attempt to conceal controlled substances on their persons."
Paragraph 20 reiterated that request: "This application seeks permission to search all occupants of the residence and their belongings to prevent the removal, concealment, or destruction of any evidence requested in this warrant."
And paragraph 21 repeated the request a third time: "As a result of the information developed, your affiant requests that a search warrant for methamphetamine and other controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, drug records, monies, proof of residence/ownership, documents, photographs, and weapons be issued for 618 Center St. Ashland, Pa., the residence of [John Doe] and all occupants therein."
Second, the affidavit also clearly attempted to establish probable cause to search all occupants of the premises. The two affiants, who had background and training in drug cases, stated that, in their experience, drug dealers, when faced with “impending apprehension,” often give evidence to other persons present on the premises in the hope that “said persons will not be subject to search when police arrive” and that this will “prevent the discovery of said items.”
Third, the warrant as drafted was intended to authorize a search of all persons on the premises. The warrant was drafted by the officers who applied for the warrant and was typed by one of those officers. App. 348a. Since the officers were seeking permission to search all occupants of the premises, they obviously intended for the draft warrant that they submitted to the magistrate to authorize the search of such persons.
Fourth, the warrant expressly incorporated the affidavit with respect to the issue that was most critical to the request to search all occupants, viz., the issue of probable cause. While probable cause to search premises does not necessarily provide probable cause to search every person who is found on the premises, if there is probable cause to believe that all of the persons found on the premises possess on their persons either contraband or evidence of a crime, there is no reason why a warrant authorizing a search of all such persons should not be issued. In this case, as noted, the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant application claimed that there was
probable cause to search all such persons, and the warrant expressly incorporated that claim.
Fifth, after the warrant and affidavit were reviewed by the District Attorney’s office and presented to a magistrate, the magistrate carefully reviewed these documents and signed the warrant without alteration. Under these circumstances, the “commonsense and realistic” reading of the warrant is that it authorized a search of all occupants of the premises. It seems quite clear that the magistrate intended to authorize a search of all occupants of the premises. As noted, the application repeatedly requested such authorization and set out facts that the officers (and presumably the District Attorney’s office) regarded as establishing probable cause.
The warrant indisputably incorporated the affidavit with respect to the issue of probable cause, and the magistrate signed the warrant without alteration. The only reasonable inference is that the magistrate agreed with the affidavit that there was probable cause to search all occupants of the premises and that the magistrate intended to authorize such a search. The magistrate must have understood that the officers, who had drafted the warrant, believed that the warrant, if signed, would give them authorization to carry out a search of the scope specified in the application, viz., a search of “all occupants.” As a result, the magistrate surely would not have signed the warrant without modification if the magistrate had not wished to confer that authority.
The majority, however, raises a formal objection to the warrant. The majority contends that the warrant unambiguously limits the persons to be searched to John Doe alone. In reaching this conclusion, the majority relies on the entry that the officers placed in the box entitled “SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND/OR PERSONS TO BE SEARCHED.” In that box, the officers placed the name of John Doe, followed by his race, sex, date of birth, hair and eye color, and Social Security number. Id. The officers also included the address and a fairly detailed description of the premises. Id. This information more than filled the space allotted. Id.
At their depositions, both of the officers who signed the affidavit explained why they did not note in the box in question that the warrant authorized a search of all occupants of the premises. They stated that there simply was not room in that box and that the incorporation of the affidavit into the warrant (which was noted in the box entitled “PROBABLE CAUSE BELIEF IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES”) was meant to provide a full description of the persons to be searched. The affidavit is also crossreferenced in the box entitled DATE OF VIOLATIONS.”
Officer Schaeffer testified that John Doe was mentioned in the box at issue because he “was the target,” but Officer Schaeffer added: “As you can see, that box is filled. You can’t include everything there.” He stated that the affidavit was “part of the search warrant and we include everything that we want in that affidavit of probable cause . . . . It’s impossible to fit everything we want in these little boxes. For present purposes, however, the majority attaches no significance to the entry in the box concerning probable cause.
The majority takes the position that the only relevant entry is the one in the box entitled “SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES AND/OR PERSONS TO BE SEARCHED.” Because that entry does not refer to all occupants of the premises and does not state that the affidavit isincorporated for the purpose of specifying the persons to be searched, the majority concludes that the warrant does not authorize a search of all such persons. The majority states that the “warrant has no ambiguous . . . terms on its face” and that it is therefore improper to look beyond the face of the warrant.
I believe that the majority’s analysis is flawed. First and most important, the majority employs a technical and legalistic method of interpretation that is the antithesis of the “commonsense and realistic” approach that is appropriate.
Officer Phillips gave a similar explanation:
Q. Okay. You’ll agree with me, sir, that on the face of the warrant it calls, under the heading “Specific Description of Premises and/or Persons to be Searched” the only individual named there is [John Doe], is that correct?
A. That is correct. And the reason for that is there’s not enough room in that block to indicate every possible name of individuals who might be in the residence to be searched. That’s why we extended into the probable cause affidavit, just as the rest of the information is in the probable cause affidavit. It would not fit on the face sheet of this warrant.
Q. So it’s your testimony that the only reason that the words and other, “and other occupants of the residence” do not appear on the face of the search warrant is there’s no room?
A. There’s no room to list all of the occupants who may have been in the residence at the time with, along with an explanation of what “other occupants” are, include visitors, family members.
The majority’s mistaken approach is further exemplified by its suggestion that the affidavit does not actually state that, in the experience of the affiants, drug dealers “often hide drugs on family members and young children.” Second, the face of the warrant here does not unambiguously restrict the persons to be searched to John Doe alone. As previously noted, the question whether occupants other than John Doe should be searched was closely tied (if not identical) to the question whether there was probable
cause to search such persons, and the face of the warrant incorporated the affidavit with respect to the issue of probable cause.
This incorporation, at the very least, creates a sufficient ambiguity to permit consideration of the affidavit and the circumstances surrounding the application. For these reasons, I would hold that the warrant did in fact authorize a search of all persons on the premises, including Jane and Mary Doe.
. . .
Even if the warrant did not confer such authorization, a reasonable officer certainly could have believed that it did, and therefore the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity should have been granted. Qualified immunity “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” The appellants in this case did not exhibit incompetence or a willingness to flout the law. Instead, they reasonably concluded that the magistrate had authorized a search
of all occupants of the premises where: (1) that is what the application sought; (2) the affidavit asserted that there was probable cause for such a search; (3) the warrant expressly incorporated the affidavit on the issue of probable cause, (4) the language of the warrant was drafted to confer authorization to search all occupants, and (4) the magistrate signed the warrant without modification. In light of the discussion of these points in part I of this opinion, it is unnecessary to address them further here.
In sum, the District Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. I share the majority’s visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe’s young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face. Because the warrant in this case authorized the searches that are challenged – and because a reasonable officer, in any event, certainly could have thought that the warrant conferred such authority – I would reverse. The plaintiffs argue that there was no probable cause to search them, but whether or not there was probable cause, when a warrant is issued, officers who execute the warrant are entitled to qualified immunity unless "the warrant application is so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable."
| For Godsakes what the hell do the cops have to do? 
What is absurd about this decision is that this is a civil lawsuit by the people searched to make a ton of money--it has nothing to do with jail time. In other words, these liberal morons from that cicruit are trying to claim that these officers had no reasonable anticipation that the mother and kid might be hiding drugs. Its absurd. Yet you read the summary and it makes it out like this was an "illegal strip search" when it was nothing of the kind. Its a couple of liberal judges siezing on a ridiculous technicality. It nonsense like this that makes people think our legal system is a friggin joke and it is when two liberal judges expect that every damn thing written is suppossed to fit in one little box and people aren't allowed to continue it on an attachment to the warrant. That is just friggin insane and any reasonable person (which would exclude the liberals here) would think that decision is ridiculous. The warrant specifically said it it was for all persons on the premises. How friggin stupid is it to go to a drug dealer's propert and not search the people there? Again, only a liberal could come to a decision like this.
Last edited by Mulderator : 31-Oct-2005 05:16 PM.
|
Login 
Civilized Debate 
