Reporting from Washington—
The Supreme Court heard arguments over whether Los Angeles sheriff's deputies went too far when they obtained a search warrant and seized all the guns from a home in South Los Angeles where a wanted violent gang member was thought to be living.
Usually, police officers are protected from lawsuits if they enter a home with a search warrant issued by a judge.
..
..
The case of Messerschmidt vs. Millender brought together some strange bedfellows when it reached the Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Assn. and the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. joined in supporting the Millenders, whose personal guns were seized. The Obama administration joined with Los Angeles County in arguing for the suit against the detective to be dismissed.
The 4th Amendment gives people a "right to be secure" in their homes and says "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause … and particularly describing … the persons and things to be seized." The 9th Circuit recited the words of the amendment in upholding the Millenders' suit against Messerschmidt.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-search-20111206,0,6222586.storyWhile I tend to sympathize with the ACLU and NRA on this, I'm not sure the individual cop is the prime person to blame here. Sounds like the judge who signed off on the bogus search warrant should be the primary focus, if anything the county perhaps ought to be liable for violating an innocent family's Fourth Amendment rights. (Although the detective really should have exercised better discretion and left the guns alone once it was established that the suspect didn't live there any more, and wasn't in control of them.)
I presume the innocent family who was raided got their firearms back unmolested? The article doesn't say...
It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this indeed.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
