1 Cite as: 55 0 U

. S. ____ (2007)

Per Curiam 

## SUPREME CO URT O FTHE UNI TED STATES LOS AN GE LES C O U N TY, CALIF ORNIA, ET AL

. v. MAX RE TT ELE ET AL

. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATE S COU R T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIR C UIT No. 06–6 05. D e c i ded M a y 21, 200 7 P ER C UR IAM

. Deputies of the Los An geles County Sheriff ’ s Depart

ment obtained a valid warran tto search a ho use, but the y were unaware that th e suspects being sought had moved out three months earlier. When the deputies searched the house, they found in a bedroom two residents who were o f a different race than the suspects. The d e puties ordered these inno cent residents, who had been sleeping u n clothed, out of bed. The deputies required them to stand for a few minutes befor e allowing them to dress. The residents brought suit under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, naming the deputies and otherparties and accusing th em of violat ing the Fourth Amend m ent right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The DistrictCo urt grantedsummary judgment t o all named defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, c o ncluding b o th that th e deputies violated th e Fourth Am endment and that th ey were not entitled to qualified i mmunity b e cause a reasonabl e deputy wo uld have stopped the search upondiscovering that respo n dents were of a differ e nt race th an the suspects and b e cause a rea s onable deputy would not have ord e red respon

dents from their bed. We grant t h e petition for certiora r i and reverse the jud g m e nt of the Court of Ap peals by thi s summary di sposition. I From Septe m ber to Decemb er 2001, Los Angeles County2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. RETTELE

Per Curiam Sheriff’s De partment D e puty Denn is Watters investigated a fraud an d identity-t heft crime ring. Ther e were four suspects of the investigation. One had registered a 9

- millimeter Glock handgun. The fo ur suspects were known to be African-American s. On Decemb er 11, Watters obtained a search warran tfor two houses in Lancaster, California, where he believed h e could find the suspects. The warrant authorized him to search the homes and three of the suspects fo r document s and comput er files. In supportof the searchwar r anta n affidavit ci ted various source s showing the suspects re

sided at respondents’ home. Th e sources i n cluded De

partment o f Motor Ve hicles reports, mailing address list

ings, an outstanding warran t , a n d an Inter n et telephone directory. In this Court re spondents do not dispute the validity of the warran tor the means by which it was obtained. What Watters did not know was that one of the hous es (the first to be searched) had been sold in September to a Max Rettele. He ha d purchased the home and moved into it three months earlierwith his gi rlfriend Judy Sadler an d Sadler’ s 17-year-old son Chase Hall. All three, respon

dents here, are Caucasians. On the mo rning of D e cember 19, Watters briefed six other deputies in preparation for the search of the houses. Watters informed them they wou l d be searching for thr e e African-American suspects, one of whom owned a regis

tered handgun. The possibil i ty a suspect wo uld be arm e d caused the deputies concern for th eir own safety. Watte rs had not obtained special permission for a night search, so he could not execute the warrant until 7 a.m. See Ca l. Penal Code Ann. §1533 (West 2000). Around 7:15 Watters and six other deputies knocked on the door and announced their presence. Chase Hall answered. The deputies en

tered the house after ordering Hall to lie face down on th e ground.3 Cite as: 55 0 U

. S. ____ (2007)

Per Curiam The deputi es’ announcement awoke Rettele and Sadler. The deputi es entered t h eir bedroom with gun s drawnan d ordered them to get out of their bed and t o show their hands. They protested that they were not wea r ing clothes

. Rettele stood up an d at tempted to put on apa ir of sweat

pants, but deputies told him notto move. Sadler also stood up and attempte d, without success, to cover herself with a sheet. Rettele and Sadler were held at gunpoint for one to two minutes before Re ttele was allowed to retriev e a robe for S a dler. He was thenpe rmitted to d r ess. Rettele and Sadler left the bedroom within three to four minutes to sit on the couch in the living room. By tha tti me the deputies realized they h a d made a mistak e. They apologi z ed to Rettele and Sadl er, thank e d them for not becoming upset, andleft within fi ve minutes. They proce e ded to the other house the warran tauthorized them to search, wher e they found three suspects. Tho s e suspects were arrested and convict e d. Rettele and Sadler, individually and as guardians a d litem for Hall, filed th is §1983 su it against Los Angeles County, th e Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Departme n t, Deputy Wa tters, and other members of the sheriff’s de

partment. Respondents alleged p e titioners violated thei r Fourth Am endment rights by ob taining a warran tin reckless fashion and c o nducting an unreasonable s e arch and detention. The District Courtheld that the warrant was obtained by proper procedures and the search was reasonable. It concl u ded in th e alternativ e that any Fourth Am endment rights the deputies violated were no t clearly established andthat, as a result, the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity. On appeal respondents did not challenge the validity of the warran t ; they didargue tha tthe deput i es had con

ducted the search in an unreasonable manner. A divide d panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit re

versed in a nunpublished opinion. 186 Fe d. Appx. 7 654 LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. RETTELE

Per Curiam (2006). The majority h e ld that “because (1) no Africa n-American s lived in [respon

dents’] home; (2) [resp o ndents], aCaucasian couple, purchased the residence several months before the search and the deputies did not co nduct an o w nership inquiry; (3) the African-Americansuspects were not accused of a crime that re quired an emergency search; and (4) [res pondents] were ordered out of bed nak ed and held at gunpoint while the deputies searched their bedroom for the s u spects and a gun, we find that a reasonabl e jury could conclude that the search and detention were ‘unnecessarily painful, degr ading, or prolonged,’and involved ‘ a n undue invasion of pri

vacy, ’ Fran klin v. Foxwort h , 31 F. 3d 873, 876 (9th Cir. 1994).” Id., at 766. Turning to whether respon dents’ Fourth Amendment rights were clearly est ablished, th e majority held that a reasonable deputy should have known the search an d detention were unlawful. Judge Cowen dissented. In his view the deputies had authority t o detain respondents for the dur a tion of the search and were justi f ied in ordering respondents from their bed because weapons cou l d have been conceal e d under the bedcovers. He also concluded th at, assuming a constitutional viol ation, the law was not clearly established

. The Court o f Appeals denied rehea r ing and rehearing e n banc. II Because respondents were of a different race than the suspects the deputies were seeking, the Court of Appeals held that “[a]fter tak i ng one lookat [respo ndents], the deputies should have realized that [respondents] were no t the subject s of the search warra nt and didnot pose a threat to th e deputies’ safety.” Ibid. We need not pauseCite as: 55 0 U

. S. ____ (2007) 5
Per Curiam long in rej e cting this unsound proposition. When the deputies ordered respondents from their bed, they had no way of kno w ing whet her the African-Ameri c an suspects were elsewhere in the house. The presence of some Cau

casians in the residence did not eliminate t h e possibi li ty that the suspects lived there as well. As the deputies stated in th eir affidavit s , it is not u n common in our society for people of different r a ces to live together. Just as peo

ple of diff erent races live andwork together, so too might they engag e in joint criminal activity. The d e puties, who were searching a house where they believed a suspect might be a r med, possessed autho rity to secu re the pre m ises before deciding wh ether to continue with t h e search. In Michiganv. Summers , 452 U. S. 692 (1981), this Court held that officers executing a search warrant f o r contraband may “deta i n the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” Id., at 70 5. In weigh

ing whethe r the searc hin Summers was rea s onable the Court firs tfound that“detention represents only an in

cremental intrusion on personalliberty when the search o f a home ha s been auth o rized by a valid warrant.” Id. , at 703. Against that interest, it bala n ced “preve nting flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found”; “mini

mizing the risk of ha rm to the officers”; and facilitating “the orderlycompletion of the sear ch.” Id., at 702–703; see Muehler v. Mena , 544 U. S. 93 (2005). In executing a search warran tofficers may take reason

able action to secure th e premises and to ensu re their ow n safety and the efficacyof the sear ch. Id., at 98–100; see also id., a t103 (K E NNEDY , J., concurrin g); Summers , supra , at 7 04–705. The test of reasonabl en ess under the Fourth Amendment is an objective one. Gra ham v. Con

nor , 490 U. S. 386, 397 (1989) (addressing the reasonable

ness of a s e izure of th e person). Unreason able action s include the use of excessive force or restraint s that caus e unnecessary pain or are imposed for a prolonged an d6 LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. RETTELE

Per Curiam unnecessary period of time. Mena , supra , at 1 00; Grah a m , supra , at 39 6–399. The orders by the police to the occupants, in the context of this lawful search, were permissible, and perhaps nec

essary, to protect the safety of the deputies. Blankets and bedding canconceal a weapon, and one of the s u spects was known to o w n a firea r m, factors which un derscore th is point. The Constitution do es not require an officer t o ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may sleep with a weapon within reach. The reports are replete wit h accounts of suspects sleeping cl ose toweapons. Se e United S t a t esv. Ensli n , 327 F. 3 d788, 791 (CA9 2003) (“When [the suspect] put his hands in the air a n d began to sit up, his movement shifted the covers and the marshals could see agun in the bed next t o him”); s e e also United Sta t es v. Jon e s , 336 F. 3d 245, 248 (CA3 2 003) (suspect kept a 9-millimeter Lu ger under his pillow wh ile he slept); United S t a t esv. Hi ghto wer , 96 F. 3 d211 (CA7 1996) (sus

pect kept aloaded five-shot handgun under his pillow) ; Sta t ev. Willis , 36,759–KA, p. 3 (La. App. 4/9/03), 8 43 So. 2d 592, 595 (officers “pulled back the bed covers an d found a .38caliber Model 10 Smith and Wes s o n revolver located near where defendant’s left hand had been”); Sta t e v. Kypreos , 115 Wash. App. 207, 6 1 P. 3d 352 (2002) (sus

pect kept a handgun in the bed). The deputies needed a moment to secure the room and ensure that other persons we re not close by or did not present a danger. Deputies were not required to turn their backs to allow Rettele andSadler to retrieve clothing
or to cover themselves with the sheets. Rathe r , “[ t]he ris k of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.” Summers , 452 U. S., at 702–703. This is not to say, of course, that t h e deputies were free to force R e ttele and Sadlerto remain motionless and standing for any longer than necessary. We have recog

-7 Cite as: 55 0 U

. S. ____ (2007)

Per Curiam nized that “special circumstances, or possibly a prolonged detention” might render a searchunreasonable. See id., at 705, n. 21. There is no accus a tion that the detention here was prolonged. The deputies left the home less than 15 minutes after arrivi ng. The detention was shorter and less restrictive than the 2- to 3- hour handcuff detention upheld in Mena

. See 544 U. S., at 100. An d there is no allegation that the deputies prevented Sadler and Rettele from dressing longer than nec e ssary to protect the i r safety. Sa dler was u n clothed for no more than two mi n utes, and Rettele for only slightly more tim e than tha t

. Sadler testified that once the police were satisfied that no immediate threat was presented, “they want ed us to get dressed and they were pressing us really fast to hurry up and get some clothes on.” Deposition of Judy Lorrai n e Sadler in No. CV–0206262–RSWL (RNBX) (CD Cal., June 10, 2003), Doc. 26, Exh. 4, p. 55. The FourthAmendment allows warran t s t o issue on probable cause, a standard well short of absolute cer

tainty. Val i d warran t s will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear th e cost. Office rs executin g search wa rrants on oc casion enter a house when residents are en gaged in private activity; and the resulting fru s tration, embarrassment, and hu

miliation may be real, as was true here. When officers execute a valid warran tand act ina reasonab le manner to protect the m selves from harm, however, the Fourth Amendment is not viol ated. As respondents’ constitutio nal rights were not violated , “there is n o necess ity for further inquiries concerning qualified i mmunity.” Saucierv. Katz , 533 U. S. 194, 201 (2001). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for furt her proceedings consis

tent with th is opinion. It is so orde red. J USTICE S OU T E R would deny the petition for a w r it of certiorari.1 Cite as: 55 0 U

. S. ____ (2007)

S TEVENS , J ., co ncu rrin gin j u dgment 

## SUPREME CO URT O FTHE UNI TED STATES LOS AN GE LES C O U N TY, CALIF ORNIA, ET AL

. v. MAX RE TT ELE ET AL

. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATE S COU R T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIR C UIT No. 06–6 05. D e c i ded M a y 21, 200 7 J USTICE S T EVEN S , wit hwhom J USTICE G IN SBURGjoins, concurring i nthe judgm e nt. This case p r esents two separate q u estions: (1) whether the four circumstances identified in the Courtof Appeals’ unpublished opinion established a genuine issue of mate

rial fact as to whether the seizure violated respondents’ Fourth Am endment rights, see ante, at 4; (2) whether the officers wer e nevertheless en titled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established. The fac t that the judges on theCourt of Appeals disa greed on bo th questions c o nvinces me that they should n o t have an

nounced their decision in an unpublished opi n ion. In answering the first q u estion, the Ninth Cir c u it major

ity relied primarily on Franklin v. Foxwort h , 31 F. 3d 8 7 3 (CA9 1994). As Judge Cowen’s discussion of Franklin demonstrates, that case surelydoes not clearly establish the unconstitutionality of the officers’ cond uct.* Conse

-

——————

* See18 6 Fed. Appx . 76 5, 76 7 (20 06) (dis se n t in gopin ion) (“In Frank

lin v. Foxwort h , 3 1 F.3 d87 3 (9 t h Cir. 1 994), we found uncons t i t u t i onal the officers’ failure to pro v ide clot hing to a gravely ill m a n befor e expos i ng his genit a l s t otwent y -t hree s t ra ngers for over t w o hou r s , under cir cums t a nces where t h ere wa s no rea s on wh y t h e ma n wa s not given clot hing

. Id . at8 76– 78. We c o n c l u d ed th atth e deten t ionw a s conduct ed i n‘ama nnert h a twa nt onlya n d ca llous ly s u bj ect e d a n obviously ill and incapacit ated pers on t oentirely unnecessary and
u n j u s tifiab le d e gr adationan d su ffer i n g .’ Id . at 878. He r e , inc o n t r a st, Plaintiff s were not gravely ill, and th eir bri e f exposure, which lasted, at most, three or four minutes, was outwei gh ed byth e safe tyr i sks as soc i

ated w i thallo w i n gtw o oc cupan ts to r e mai ninbed un derc o v e r s dur i ng2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. RETTELE

S TEVENS , J ., co ncu rrin gin j u dgment quently, regardless of the proper answer to the constitu

tional ques t ion, the defendants were entitledto qualifi e d immunity. I would reverse on that ground and disavow the unwise practice of decidingco nstitutional questions i n advance of the necessityfor doing so. See Co unt y of Sac

ramen t ov. Lewi s , 523 U. S. 833, 8 59 (1998) (S TEVE NS , J., concurring in judgment). Ac cord ingly, I concur in th e Court’s jud g ment.

—————— execut ion of a s e a rch wa rra n t” )

.