Two petitions are now pending in the Supreme Court that once
again raise the issue of misconduct by police. Would you vote to
hear the cases?
These were the facts in Los Angeles County v. Rettele :
In the summer of 2001, L.A. police began investigating a ring of
thieves who relied upon false identities to work their scam. The
investigation developed probable cause to believe that four of
the suspects, all African-American, were working out of an
address on Loneoak Avenue in the town of Lancaster, northeast of
the city. Motor vehicle records placed two of the suspects at the
residence. Another had registered a handgun to the same address.
In a summer drive-by, police observed an African-American male
who matched the description of yet another suspect.
Thus prepared with a search warrant, and led by veteran Dennis
Watters, seven officers made their raid a little after 7 o'clock
on the morning of Dec. 19. Unknown to the detectives, several
months earlier Max Rettele, Judy Sadler and her teenaged son had
moved into the Loneoak property. Police knocked. The boy came
outside. At gunpoint, "He was then assisted to the ground." Four
detectives rushed in.
From the record: "His gun drawn, Detective Campbell opened a
door to a bedroom. Rettele and Sadler were in bed under the
covers. They were told to get out of bed and show their hands.
Sadler stood up ... Rettele went to another bedroom, naked, to
get Sadler a robe. When he came back, he put on his sweat pants
and Sadler put on the robe. Sadler was naked in front of Campbell
for about one minute."
Detectives soon concluded that a mistake had been made.
"Because all three residents were Caucasian and Watters was
looking for African-American suspects, Watters decided to call
off the search. He then explained why the deputies were there,
apologized, thanked them for not getting upset, and swiftly
left."
Rettele and Sadler sued the police. U.S. District Judge Dale
S. Fischer granted summary judgment to the officers on their plea
of qualified immunity, but a panel of the 9th Circuit voted 2-1
to reverse: "After taking one look at the plaintiffs, the
deputies should have realized that plaintiffs were not the
subjects of the search warrant and did not pose a threat."
In their petition to the Supreme Court, counsel for the police
minimize the mistake: "Simply stated, a mild inconvenience or
embarrassment does not equal a constitutional violation. ...
Plaintiffs were not injured. Their privacy was not unduly
invaded. ... The incident was minimally intrusive."
In an entirely separate case, also from the 9th Circuit,
counsel ask the high court to exonerate police in Kennewick,
Wash. This case arises from an incident about 1 o'clock in the
morning of July 14, 2003. Sgt. Richard Dopke observed a man
riding a mini-moped without lights and without a helmet. He
turned on his siren and gave chase, but the suspect slipped into
a garage. Two women told the officer he had run out the back
door. Continued... |