L.A. County v. Max Rettele - 550 U.S. 609, 127 S. Ct.

1989 (2007)

RULE:
In executing a search warrant officers may take reasonable action to secure the premises and to
ensure their own safety and the efficacy of the search. The test of reasonableness under
the Fourth Amendment is an objective one. Unreasonable actions include the use of excessive
force or restraints that cause unnecessary pain or are imposed for a prolonged and unnecessary
period of time.

FACTS:
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department obtained a warrant to search a residence
connected with a fraud and identity-theft crime ring. Unbeknownst to the police, the residence
had been sold three months prior to the search, and there was no longer a suspect living there.
The suspect the police thought lived in the residence for which the warrant was obtained was
African American. When the police arrived at the house to conduct the search, the family living
there was Caucasian. Max Rettele and his girlfriend Judy Sadler naked in bed were ordered out
of bed and detained while the police secured the premises, but the police realized their mistake
and quickly left. Rettele sued Los Angeles County for violating his Fourth Amendment right to
be free from illegal searches and seizures since it was done in a reckless manner. The trial court
held that the police were not liable for violating Rettele’s Fourth Amendment rights. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the lower court’s decision and held that, since
the race of Rettele and his girlfriend and his son Chase Hall (17 yr old) did not match the race of
the suspect identified in the search warrant, the police violated Rettele’s Fourth Amendment
rights.

Residents recently purchased the home and asserted that, although they were not the same
race as the suspects being sought under a search warrant, sheriff's deputies ordered the
residents to get out of their bed and remain unclothed until the deputies determined that the
suspects were not present. Respondent residents brought an action against petitioners
deputies, alleging that the deputies unreasonably executed a search warrant for suspects who
formerly lived at the home. Upon appellate review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit held that the deputies' conduct was unreasonable. Judge Cowen dissented. In his view
the deputies had authority to detain respondents for the duration of the search and were
justified in ordering respondents from their bed because weapons could have been concealed
under the bedcovers. He also concluded that, assuming a constitutional violation, the law was
not clearly established. The deputies petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari
review.
ISSUE:
Were there violations of Fourth Amendment rights when the authorities detained the
respondent residents in their home despite the fact their race differed from the race of the
suspects identified in the search warrant? (NO)

CONCLUSION BY JUSTICE SOUTER:

The Supreme Court held that the execution of the properly issued warrant by the deputies was
not unreasonable. Regardless of the difference in race, when the residents were ordered from
their bed, the deputies had no way of knowing whether the suspects were elsewhere in the
home. Further, one of the suspects was reported to be armed, and the deputies were justified
in ordering the residents from the bed, and refusing to allow them to dress for a brief period, in
order to insure that no weapons were concealed in the bedding or elsewhere. The orders by
the police to the occupants, in the context of this lawful search, were permissible, and perhaps
necessary, to protect the safety of the deputies. Blankets and bedding can conceal a weapon,
and one of the suspects was known to own a firearm, factors which underscore this point. The
Constitution does not require an officer to ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may
sleep with a weapon within reach. Reports are replete with accounts of suspects sleeping close
to weapons.

A search of the respondents’ house was reasonable despite the fact that the respondents were
of a different race than the original suspects. Los Angeles County deputies “obtained a valid
warrant to search a house, unaware that the suspects being sought had moved out three
months earlier.” Upon entering the house at 7:00 a.m., deputies found the respondents Max
Rettele and Judy Sadler naked in bed and held them at gunpoint for one to two minutes before
allowing them to dress and instructing them to wait in the living room. Within five minutes, the
deputies realized their mistake, apologized, and left the house. The respondents claimed that
their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, but the District Court held “that the warrant
was obtained by proper procedures and the search was reasonable.” The Ninth Circuit
reversed. The Court rejects the Ninth Circuit’s holding because “it is not uncommon for people
of different races to live together,” so “[w]hen the deputies ordered respondents from their
bed, they had no way of knowing whether the African-American suspects were elsewhere in
the house.” The Court also notes that “officers may take reasonable action to secure the
premises and to ensure their own safety and the efficacy of the search.” Because an armed
suspect might easily hide a firearm in bedding, the Court finds the officers’ orders to be
reasonable under the circumstances and concludes that the respondents’ constitutional rights
were not violated.
In a per curiam opinion, the unanimous Court held that, because the police had only detained
Rettele and his girlfriend for a short period of time while they began to secure the premises for
a search, his Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The Court further held that the fact
that Rettele’s race differed from the race of the individual listed on the search warrant did not
mean the police were mistaken in beginning their search of the property. The fact that Rettele
was clearly Caucasian did not rule out the possibility that there were individuals in the home
who matched the description in the search warrant, and therefore the search was lawful. In his
concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit should have published the decision in this case. Justice Stevens also argued that the
appellate court preemptively decided a question of constitutional law that it should not have
addressed. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the concurring opinion.

The Fourth Amendment allows warrants to issue on probable cause, a standard well short of
absolute certainty. Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele
and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost. Officers executing search warrants on occasion enter
a house when residents are engaged in private activity; and the resulting frustration,
embarrassment, and humiliation may be real, as was true here. The orders by the police to
the occupants, in the context of this lawful search, were permissible, and perhaps necessary,
to protect the safety of the deputies. Blankets and bedding can conceal a weapon, and one of
the suspects was known to own a firearm, factors which underscore this point. The
Constitution does not require an officer to ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may
sleep with a weapon within reach. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a
reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the Fourth Amendment is
not violated.