After All, They’re Just Police Officers
Monday, October 22nd by Robert LoblawMoore v. Andreno, 06-3623 (2nd Cir., Oct. 22, 2007)
While [the defendants] misapplied the relevant constitutional calculus, they are police officers, not lawyers or mathematicians.
That’s the logic behind this Fourth Amendment decision, in which the Second Circuit determines that officers who responded to a call from a woman who had broken into her ex’s locked study are entitled to qualified immunity for searching the study and finding drugs. According to the Court, although the police made a constitutional error, they did a reasonable job of resolving a difficult tension between the right to privacy in one’s home and the rights of victims of domestic violence. See if you agree.
Ruth Sines and defendant Richard Moore lived together in Moore’s home, but she was never allowed to enter his study, which Moore always kept locked. Sines decided to move out after Moore threatened to kill her during an argument. As she was packing her things, she realized that her snorkeling equipment was missing. She assumed that Moore had hidden it in his study. So she broke the locks on his door and went in. Sines found a medical bag in a closet and “perhaps thinking her snorkeling equipment might be in” it, decided to open it. She found marijuana. Shortly thereafter, the phone rang and Sines allegedly panicked, fearing that Moore might be on his way home.
That’s when the cops got involved. They received a “hysterical” call from Sines asking for help retrieving her belongings. When the police arrived at Moore’s home, Sines told them that she was not allowed in the study but that she had broken the locks. According to the opinion, she may have even told them that there were drugs in the medical bag. The police entered the study, found the drugs, and charged Moore with possession under state law. A county court granted Moore’s motion to suppress the drugs, and he then filed this § 1983 law suit against the police.
The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, but the Second Circuit reverses. Applying a test set forth in a 1992 decision from the Second Circuit, the Court concludes that the officers violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by assuming that Sines had authority to consent to their entry into the study. However, the Court further holds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. The test is typically whether the rights in question were clearly established in the case law, and it’s hard to argue that they were not. Instead, the Court focuses on the fact that the officers faced a difficult decision in balancing competing interests. The Court concludes that, under the circumstances, the officers should be entitled to qualified immunity despite making the wrong decision. Accordingly, it remands the case for dismissal.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
While [the defendants] misapplied the relevant constitutional calculus, they are police officers, not lawyers or mathematicians.
Aren’t they charged with enforcing the law? Doesn’t the law include the Constitution? What excuse do they have for not knowing basic laws? They sure knew what law to charge the boyfriend under, didn’t they?
Why is “ignorance of the law no excuse” when private people are charged with crimes? The criminal code is complex, and it’s understandable that lay people might not understand when his conduct is criminal. Shouldn’t lay persons be given the benefit of the doubt in such cases? Why not?
In any event, this wasn’t a hard case. The wife couldn’t consent to a search of the room, as she was not a co-occupant. She admitted this. The room was locked, she didn’t have a key, and she had to use bolt cutters to enter it. Thus, the police couldn’t enter the room without a warrant. This is black-letter law.
As for protecting the girlfriend? Of course they should have protected her. But what in the heck does entering a room without a warrant have to do with protecting a “victim” of domestic violence.
Also, if the girlfriend thought her boyfriend had her stuff, couldn’t she have filed a police complaint? Of course. But there wasn’t probable cause that he had her stuff. She just couldn’t find her stuff. This happens all the time. That there was no probable cause that he had her stuff is yet another reason the search was invalid.
Did police charge the girlfriend with breaking and entering and malicious destruction of property (the locks)? She was clearly guilty. Why wasn’t she charged?
I put “victim” in quotes, above, because the wife seemed like she herself was engaging in some shady conduct. It’s anyone’s guess who the real victim in that relationship was. After all, it’s not like men call the police when their wives hit them in the face.
I’m not defending fat white guys who wear tank tops and drink Budweiser and live in trailers. But we have to get real: Often women hit first, the men hit back, and the women calls the cops. Who is the victim in that situation?
Anyhow, I still want to know why the girlfriend was not charged with any crimes. She was clearly guilty. What gives? Can women commit crimes with impunity?
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:59 pm
agreed. the logic behind this makes no sense. all 1983 suits would be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds if police officers dont have to know basic 4th amendment law. at some point we have to say police officers should know better.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
This is why proposals to replace exclusionary rules with tort remedies against overreaching police officers and prosecutors are laughably naïve–the appeals courts are strongly biased in favor of officers. Official misconduct cannot be deterred by a purely theoretical tort liability from which they are always excused in practice.
Actually, on the facts recited, the cops could and should have arrested the woman for burglary. She made a full spontaneous confession to that felony crime in the officers’ presence and even gave them a tour of the physical evidence (the broken locks, etc.). They ignored all of that in favor of a patently unlawful fishing expedition into the victim’s private study because they wanted so badly to find drugs. Vice (drug) arrests bring promotion and access to “asset forfeiture” money, but arrests for serious crimes like burglary don’t even soften the scowl on the captain’s face.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:36 am
Oops, that was supposed to be “Officers’ misconduct…”
October 24th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
[…] http://www.enotes.com/blogs/… Moore v. Andreno, 06-3623 (2nd Cir., Oct. 22, 2007) While [the defendants] misapplied the relevant constitutional calculus, they are police officers, not lawyers or mathematicians. […]