Analysis of a 15 Year Old Case . . . Los Angeles v. Rettele: the Supreme Court's Missing Totality of the Circumstances
| Publication year | 2023 |
| Author | Written by William Lawton |
Written by William Lawton*
Imagine you and your partner moved into a home together months ago. One morning, as you two slept in your bed naked, you are awakened by the shock that the police are in your home and command you to leave your bed. The police deny you the opportunity to get dressed and continue to hold you at gunpoint as they search for people you do not know and who are not in your home. After searching for minutes but finding nothing, the officers apologize for the inconvenience and leave as if what just transpired was a minor inconvenience. While you may feel what happened to you was, at a minimum, grossly negligent police conduct that violated your constitutional right to be secure in your own home, the law would not be on your side. Based on the Supreme Court of the United States' decision in City of Los Angeles v. Rettele, the mistake was reasonable, the manner you and your partner were detained was reasonable, and therefore your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in your home was not violated.
This article examines the infringement on Fourth Amendment rights created by Rettele. Section II discusses factual background and procedural history of Rettele. Section III(A) discusses the Supreme Court's per curiam holding. Section IV(A) concludes that the Supreme Court did not conduct a totality of the circumstances analysis and the Court of Appeals' did. Section IV(B) discusses the consequences of the Supreme Court's decision in Rettele.
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
From September to December 2001, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department investigated four African-American suspects for fraud and identity theft.1 The officers learned one suspect possessed a registered nine-millimeter Glock pistol.2 While the officers were concerned for their safety based solely on the possible presence of this lawful firearm, a nighttime search warrant was not secured.3 In September, the same month the sheriff's department began to gather the evidence for a warrant, Max Rettele purchased one of the two homes under investigation.4 Max Rettele and his girlfriend Judy Sadler were sleeping in his home in the early morning of December 19, 2001.5 They were awoken by the announcement that police arrived to search their home for three African American suspects.6 The police ordered Rettele and Sadler out of their bed naked, held them at gunpoint, and prevented them from clothing themselves.7The police completed a search of the home, realized the suspects were not there, apologized to the couple, and left
[Page 14]
within five minutes.8 The police executed the warrant on the second house and found and arrested three of the four suspects.9 Those three suspects were later convicted.10
B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rettele and Sadler filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Los Angeles County, the Sheriff's Department, and the deputies present for execution of the warrant.11 The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants because of qualified immunity.12 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that a reasonable officer would have ceased the search when seeing the plaintiffs were an unknown Caucasian couple rather than the African American suspects.13 The Court of Appeals further held that, if Rettele's allegations were true, the officers violated Rettele and Sadler's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures because: (1) No African American persons lived in Rettele's home; (2) Rettele purchased the home months prior to the search and the police did not conduct a ownership inquiry for the house; (3) the suspects were not accused of a crime that needed an emergency search; therefore (4) a reasonable jury could find the manner the officers detained Rettele and Sadler was "unnecessarily painful, degrading, or prolonged[.]"14
In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Court of Appeals and held: (1) the discovery of Caucasian inhabitants did not automatically necessitate an immediate end to the search a reasonable officer could still believe that the African American suspects might be the house; (2) when executing a search warrant for contraband, officers may detain occupants to prevent the possibility of flight or resistant in the event the officers find inculpatory evidence; (3) officers may take reasonable precautions to ensure their safety so long as the precautions are not excessive; and (4) because the warrant was valid and the search was conducted reasonably, Rettele and Sadler's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.15The Court reasoned: (1) the suspect's firearm could have been concealed in the bed within Rettele or Sadler's reach, therefore it was reasonable and possibly necessary for the police to detain Rettele and Sadler in the described manner; (2) it was reasonable and necessary for the police to secure the area and ensure "other persons were not close by or did not present a danger."; (3) the officers were not required to allow Rettele and Sadler to get dressed or otherwise cover themselves; and (4) the detention was not prolonged nor were there special circumstances that would make the detention excessive.16
A.
In the conclusion of the case, the Court noted that warrants require probable cause rather than perfect knowledge.17Consequently, a valid warrant can be issued directed at an innocent party, and Rettele and Sadler's Fourth Amendment rights could not have been violated.18 Probable cause is determined on a totality of the circumstances basis, a fluid concept based on probabilities in specific factual contexts rather than precise legal rules.19 The Court explained that these probabilities ". . . are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act."20 A proper totality of the circumstances analysis "requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others . . ."21 Circumstances cannot be examined in isolation because all the facts in isolation may have innocent explanations but "[warrant] further investigation".22 Officers are best positioned to make deductions because facts may mean nothing to the untrained and appear innocent.23
However, while the Court in Rettele considered numerous possibilities for the location of a suspect's legally owned firearm, the Court did not consider circumstances that could weaken the police analysis in this particular situation.24 The Ninth Circuit's holding was not based solely on the fact that Rettele and Sadler were Caucasian. The Ninth Circuit considered other circumstances, when taken in their totality, that weakened the officers' probable cause. One such weakness was the lack of a homeownership inquiry.25 The Ninth Circuit also noted that the African Americans were not suspected of a crime that needed an emergency search.26Finally, the fact that a suspect legally owned firearm was insufficient for a no-knock warrant and, by extension, an insufficient basis for a reasonable officer to infer the suspect would likely use the lawfully possessed weapon to commit violence against the police executing the warrant.
a. NO HOMEOWNERSHIP INQUIRY
The Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."27 In Groh v. Ramirez, The Supreme Court invalidated a search warrant that failed to particularly describe the evidence the officers intended to seize.28 In fact, that warrant provided no description at all of
[Page 15]
what evidence the officers wanted to seize.29 The Court held that the fact that the application for the warrant particularly described the evidence to be seized was irrelevant because the warrant itself failed to incorporate the application.30The Court reasoned that it is the officer's responsibility to ensure searches and seizures are lawfully authorized and executed.31 A reasonable officer would have been able to see the "constitutionally fatal" flaw in the warrant from even a quick casual review of the warrant.32
The Court of Appeals in Rettele reasoned that a jury could have found the search of Rettele's home "an undue invasion of privacy" in part because Rettele purchased the house months before the search and the police did not conduct an homeownership inquiry before executing the search warrant.33 The Supreme Court, by contrast, did not analyze the merits of the warrant beyond noting the stipulation "In support of the search warrant an affidavit cited various sources showing the suspects resided at respondents' home."34 The Supreme Court did not examine this prong of the Ninth Circuit's reasoning.
The comparison to Groh demonstrates how the Rettele Court's reasoning was insufficient. Under a totality of the circumstances analysis, a reasonable officer would have conducted a homeownership inquiry into both houses to...
To continue reading
Request your trial