Business Law 13th Edition by Frank Cross, Kenneth Clarkson, Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 18

Messerschmidt v. Millender
Supreme Court of the United States, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012).
BACKGROUND AND FACTS The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was protecting a woman from Jerry Ray Bowen, when he tried to kill her with a shotgun. The woman told the police that she and Bowen used to date, that Bowen was a gang member, and that she thought Bowen was staying at the home of Augusta Millender, his former foster mother. After investigating the incident further, the police prepared a warrant to search the home for all guns and gang-related material, and a magistrate approved it.
When the police, including Curt Messerschmidt, served the search warrant, they discovered that Bowen was not at the home, but they searched it anyway. The homeowners sued individual police officers in federal court for subjecting them to an illegal search. A federal appellate court held that the police lacked probable cause for such a broad search and that the police officers could be held personally liable. The police officers appealed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the police officers were immune from personal liability.
IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
* * * *
The validity of the warrant is not before us. The question instead is whether Messerschmidt and [the other officers] are entitled to immunity from damages, even assuming that the warrant should not have been issued.
"The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials 'from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" * * * "Whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the 'objective legal reasonableness' of the action * * *."
Where the alleged Fourth Amendment violation involves a search or seizure pursuant to a warrant, the fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant is the clearest indication that the officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner * * *. "Nonetheless, * * * we have recognized an exception allowing suit when 'it is obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should issue.'" [Emphasis added.]
Our precedents make clear, however, that the threshold for establishing this exception is a high one, and it should be. * * * As we explained in [another case], "in the ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate's probable-cause determination" because "it is the magistrate's responsibility to determine whether the officer's allegations establish probable cause and, if so, to issue a warrant comporting in form with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
DECISION AND REMEDY?The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of the federal appellate court. It held that Messerschmidt and the other police officers were immune from personal liability.
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION?How would police officers behave if they could always be held personally liable for executing unconstitutional warrants? Would they be more or less inclined to apply for and execute search warrants? Explain.
Managerial Implications?The principles of this case would also apply in the context of searches of businesses. Businesses may be subject to warrantless administrative searches. Evidence gleaned from a search conducted in reasonable reliance on information that later proves to have been false may still be admissible in court in a case against the business.