Supreme Court of the United States
Messerschmidt v. Millender
February 22, 2012565 U.S. 535
Summary
The Supreme Court held that police officers who obtained a magistrate-issued warrant authorizing a search of a suspect's former foster mother's home for all firearms and gang-related materials were entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. §1983, even assuming the warrant was overbroad. Applying the Leon/Malley framework, the Court reasoned that a neutral magistrate's issuance of the warrant is the clearest indication of objective good faith, that it would not have been entirely unreasonable to believe probable cause supported both the firearms and gang-evidence categories, and that prior review by a supervisor, a deputy district attorney, and the magistrate further supported the officers' reasonableness; it distinguished Groh v. Ramirez as involving a facially obvious defect. The Court expressly declined to decide whether the warrant was actually valid, reversing the Ninth Circuit's en banc denial of qualified immunity. Justice Breyer concurred; Justice Kagan concurred in part and dissented in part, would deny immunity for the gang-materials aspect; and Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented, viewing the warrant as the kind of general search the Fourth Amendment forbids.
Holding
- Qualified immunity for officers who obtain a warrant later alleged to be overbroad, despite a neutral magistrate's issuance. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity. A magistrate's issuance of a warrant is the clearest indication that officers acted in objective good faith, and suit is permitted only in the narrow case where it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should issue.
- Objective reasonableness of believing probable cause existed to search for all firearms and firearm-related materials. It would not have been entirely unreasonable for an officer to believe that there was probable cause to search for all firearms and firearm-related materials.
- Objective reasonableness of believing probable cause existed to search for gang-related materials. It would not have been entirely unreasonable, based on the facts set out in the affidavit, for an officer to believe that gang-related evidence would aid the prosecution of Bowen for the criminal acts at issue.
- Relevance of supervisory, prosecutorial, and magisterial approval to objective reasonableness. The fact that the officers sought and obtained approval of the warrant application from a superior and a deputy district attorney before submitting it to the magistrate provides further support for the conclusion that an officer could reasonably have believed the scope of the warrant was supported by probable cause.
- Whether Groh v. Ramirez controls the obviousness analysis. Groh does not control the result; unlike the Groh warrant, which failed to describe the items to be seized at all and whose defect was apparent on even a cursory reading, any arguable defect here would have become apparent only upon close parsing of the application and comparison of the affidavit to the warrant's terms.
Docket 10-704
Cited authorities
- 26 U.S.C. §§ 5845
- 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)
- 26 U.S.C. §§5845
- 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)
- 42 U.S.C. §1983
- 42 U.S.C. §1983
Cited by
- (PC) Fields v. Paramo
- D'Ambrosio v. Methuen, City of
- Diaz v. Devlin
- Cass v. Town of Wayland
- Wayne Burwell v. Hartford Police Officer Fredrick Peyton in His Individual Capacity and as an Employee of the Town…
- Antonucci v. Winters
- Ricardo Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston
- Gloria Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District, University Medical Center, Frank Mendez, Lynette Telles, Dr…