Messerschmidt v. Millender

• Date: 01 September 2012
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016812452524
• Published date: 01 September 2012
• Author: Darrell L. Ross
• Subject Matter: Recent Legal Developments

Recent Legal Developments

Messerschmidt v. Millender:

Expanding Probable Cause

and Restricting Liability

Darrell L. Ross

1

Abstract

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether p olice officers a re

entitled to qualified immunity when their conduct does not violate any clearly established right

of which a reasonable person would have known when requesting a search warrant. The Court

found that the officers acted in a reasonable manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment

requirements for securing a valid search warrant. The Court’s decision expanded the scope of

probable cause and restricted liability of officers, holding that officers are entitled to qualified

immunity when obtaining a valid search warrant.

Keywords

qualified immunity, search warrant, Fourth Amendment, liability, good faith

Introduction

The constitution of the United States and individual state constitutions author ize and restrict police

powers. The authority of the police to perform their sworn duties is underscored in statutes, ordi-

nances, and frequently court decisions. The failure of the police to adhere to U.S. Constitutional

requirements, as interpreted by the courts, increases the risk of a case being dismissed or lost in

court, but also increases the risk of exposure to civil liability. The responsibility for law enforce-

ment officers to perform their duties within the boundaries of the law requires that they keep

abreast of changes of the law in order to perform their constitutional duties lawfully while reduc-

ing their risk of civil liability.

Among the more commonly performed duties by the police is conducting searches. While the

preferred method for conducting a search is to secure a warrant first, t he police may als o conduct

searches without a warrant under certain circumstances. Past court decisions have described the

criteria for conducting a search and securing a warrant and when evidence is excluded fro m a

criminal case it is frequently due to an officer’s failure to follow the law (Walker & Hemmens,

1

Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Darrell L. Ross, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Valdosta State University, 1500 North Pat-

terson Street, Valdosta, GA 31698, USA

Email: dross@valdosta.edu

Criminal Justice Review

37(3) 416-427

ª2012 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016812452524

http://cjr.sagepub.com