Curt Messerschmidt, et al, v Augusta Millender, et al, Case Study Example

The case being summarized is that of Curt Messerschmidt et al, v Augusta Millender et al, which was heard in the Supreme Court of the United States.  It involves a mistaken raid on Augusta Millender’s home that was carried out in a destructive manner during the night.  This raid occurred because Shelley Kelley, who had been shot at several times by her significant other Jerry Lee Bowen, told Petitioner Curt Messerschmidt that she thought Bowen was hiding at a house at 2234 East 120^th Street. Although Kelley did not know it, that house belonged to Mrs. Millender, who had once been Bowen’s foster mother. The Petitioner did not inquire and Kelley did not say why she thought that Bowen might be at that address.  On November 03 and 04 Messerschmidt and sheriff’s deputies looked around the house and took pictures of it.  On the 5^th the deputies went to the house and spoke with Mrs Millender on some pretest of gambling taking place outside her home.  Importantly, on none of these occasions was Bowen  mentioned or seen.  Nevertheless, Messerschmidt submitted an affidavit and warrant applications asking permission to arrest Bowen and to search the house at 2234 East 120the Street.  The affidavit did not contain pertinent information.  The warrant application requested authorization for three items as well as to carry out the raid at night so as to not upset the community and to provide an element of surprise to the inhabitants of the house.  The result was the SWAT team raid.  Mrs. Millender was hospitalized later that day for high blood pressure and Bowen was not located on those premises but was later found hiding underneath a bed in a local motel.

Mrs. Millender and her family filed suit under 42 U.S.C.1983 alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, which the district court agreed occurred.  The court also denied the Petitioner’s quality immunity claim “noting that the officers’ actions were not objectively reasonable.”  “In Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S.335 (1986), the Supreme Court held that a police officer who obtains a warrant in an objectively unreasonable manner is not entitled to qualified immunity.”Malley still serves to ensure “compensation for victims of constitutional violations caused by objectively unreasonable actions by law enforcement.”

According to the premise that the officers’ actions were not objectively reasonable and that the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights were thus violated, the plaintiff certainly had validity in her case, which is why the court ruled in her favor, something that I would have done as well.  A brief review of the literature affirms that an affidavit must show probable cause for a search warrant to be issued (Civil Liability and Affidavits for Search Warrants (2010).  Betker vs Gomez, #11, 3009, 202 U.S.App. Lexis, 18636 tells of a no knock warrant obtained based on a call from a woman saying that her sister was a felon who was illegally in possession of a gun.  It turned out that although the caller had not seen her sister for five years, the officers said on the warrant application that it was five days.  The couple was awoken from their sleep and the husband shot twice.  The officer was not entitled to immunity.   Daniels (2012) tells of officers who entered a home without a warrant because they believed violence was imminent, believing the family to be in danger.  In this case, officers were granted immunity because when violence is about to occur, there is no time to get a warrant.

My own thought on the case is that it is sad that things like this happen.  The sleeping occupants of the home were frightened, the house was damaged, and an elderly woman was taken to hospital all because a warrant was issued without probable cause.

References

Betker vs Gomez, #11, 3009, 202 U.S. App. Lexis.18636, AELE Law Library of Case Summaries.  Retrieved on November 03, 2012, from http://www.aele.org/law/Digests/civil98.html.

Civil Liability and Affidavids for Search Warrants (April 2010).  AELE Monthly Law Journal.  Retrieved on November 03, 2012, from http://www.aele.org/law/2010a1105/2010-05/2010-05MLJ101.pdf.

Daniels, B.D. (January 23, 2012).  Supreme Court decides Rayburn vs Huff.  Retrieved on November 03, 2012, from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g_3767.