One of worst opinions of the term: S.Ct. gives cops qualified immunity

Terrible decision granting qualified immunity to police officers. Any idiot could have seen that the affidavit did not contain probable cause for the scope of the search authorized in the warrant. Conservative authoritarianism coupled with liberal dislike for guns resulted in one of the worst opinions of the term. The Supreme Court had dumbed down the standards for officers and has dumbed down Fourth Amendment protections. I agree with the dissenters, Sotomayor and Ginsburg, who wrote:



"The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause is "to protect against all general searches." Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 344, 357 (1931). The Fourth Amendment was adopted specifically in response to the Crown's practice of using general warrants and writs of assistance to search "suspected places" for evidence of smuggling, libel, or other crimes. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 625-626 (1886). Early patriots railed against these practices as "the worst instrument of arbitrary power" and John Adams later claimed that "the child Independence was born" from colonists' opposition to their use. Id., at 625 (internal quotation marks omitted).



To prevent the issue of general warrants on "loose, vague or doubtful bases of fact," Go-Bart Importing Co., 282 U. S., at 357, the Framers established the inviolable principle that should resolve this case: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . and particularly describing the . . . things to be seized." U. S. Const., Amdt. 4. That is, the police must articulate an adequate reason to search for specific items related to specific crimes.



In this case, police officers investigating a specific, non-gang-related assault committed with a specific firearm (a sawed-off shotgun) obtained a warrant to search for all evidence related to "any Street Gang," "[a]ny photographs . . . which may depict evidence of criminal activity," and "any firearms." App. 52. They did so for the asserted reason that the search might lead to evidence related to other gang members and other criminal activity, and that other "[v]alid warrants commonly allow police to search for 'firearms and ammunition.' " See infra, at 8-9. That kind of general warrant is antithetical to the Fourth Amendment.



The Court nonetheless concludes that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was "objectively reasonable." I could not disagree more. All

13 federal judges who previously considered this case

had little difficulty concluding that the police officers' search for any gang-related material violated the Fourth Amendment. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 28-29, 45, n. 7,

73, 94, 157-158. And a substantial majority agreed that the police's search for both gang-related material and all firearms not only violated the Fourth Amendment, but was objectively unreasonable. Like them, I believe that any "reasonably well-trained officer in petitioner's position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 345 (1986).



The Court also hints that a police officer's otherwise unreasonable conduct may be excused by the approval of

a magistrate, or more disturbingly, another police officer. Ante, at 16-18. That is inconsistent with our focus on the objective reasonableness of an officer's decision to submit

a warrant application to a magistrate, and we long ago rejected it. See Malley, 475 U. S., at 345-346.



The Court's analysis bears little relationship to the record in this case, our precedents, or the purposes underlying qualified immunity analysis. For all these reasons,

I respectfully dissent."