Term: 2011
Docket: 10-704
Curt Messerschmidt Et Al., Petitioners v. Brenda Millender, As Executor Of The Estate Of Augusta Millender, Deceased, Et Al.
- Pro
10-704 MESSERSCHMIDT V. MILLENDER DECISION BELOW: 620 F.3d 1016 CERT. GRANTED 6/27/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court has held that police officers who procure and execute warrants later determined invalid are entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long as the warrant is not "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable." United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920, 923 (1984); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335,341,344-45 (1986). The Questions Presented are: 1. Under these standards, are officers entitled to qualified immunity where they obtained a facially valid warrant to search for firearms, firearm-related materials, and gang- related items in the residence of a gang member and felon who had threatened to kill his girlfriend and fired a sawed-off shotgun at her, and a district attorney approved the application, no factually on-point case law prohibited the search, and the alleged overbreadth in the warrant did not ex-pand the scope of the search? 2. Should the Malley/Leon standards be reconsidered or clarified in light of lower courts' inability to apply them in accordance with their purpose of deterring police misconduct, resulting in imposition of liability on officers for good faith conduct and improper exclusion of evidence in criminal cases? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-55518
In the case of Curt Messerschmidt et al. v. Brenda Millender, as Executor of the Estate of Augusta Millender, deceased, et al., 2011, the US Supreme Court examined whether police officers were entitled to qualified immunity for a search warrant that was later deemed overly broad. The case originated from an incident where Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies sought and obtained a warrant to search for all firearms and gang-related items in the home of Jerry Ray Bowen after he had assaulted his girlfriend with a sawed-off shotgun. However, during their search they seized only a firearm belonging to Bowen’s foster mother (Augusta Millender), who then sued them for violating her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures by executing an overbroad warrant not supported by probable cause. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of law enforcement officers stating that even if it was mistaken; their belief that the scope of the warrant was supported by probable cause may have been reasonable under existing precedents.
In the dissenting opinion for Messerschmidt v. Millender, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito, argued that the officers involved in this case should be granted qualified immunity. They contended that it was not clearly established law at the time of their actions that a warrant to search for all firearms and gang-related material would be overly broad when investigating a suspect known to have used a firearm in an assault and who had reported gang affiliations. The dissenting justices believed that reasonable officers could disagree about whether such warrants were constitutionally valid under these circumstances. Therefore, they concluded that the majority's decision denied police officers fair warning about what conduct is prohibited or required by law.
