Cite as: 550 U. S. ____ (2007) 1 

Per Curiam 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. 

MAX RETTELE ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED 

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 06–605. Decided May 21, 2007 

PER CURIAM. 

Deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department obtained a valid warrant to search a house, but they

were unaware that the suspects being sought had moved

out three months earlier. When the deputies searched the

house, they found in a bedroom two residents who were of

a different race than the suspects. The deputies ordered 

these innocent residents, who had been sleeping unclothed, out of bed. The deputies required them to stand 

for a few minutes before allowing them to dress. 

The residents brought suit under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42

U. S. C. §1983, naming the deputies and other parties and 

accusing them of violating the Fourth Amendment right to

be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The 

District Court granted summary judgment to all named

defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

reversed, concluding both that the deputies violated the 

Fourth Amendment and that they were not entitled to 

qualified immunity because a reasonable deputy would 

have stopped the search upon discovering that respondents were of a different race than the suspects and because a reasonable deputy would not have ordered respondents from their bed. We grant the petition for certiorari 

and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals by this

summary disposition. 

I 

From September to December 2001, Los Angeles County 
2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. RETTELE 

Per Curiam 

Sheriff’s Department Deputy Dennis Watters investigated

a fraud and identity-theft crime ring. There were four 

suspects of the investigation. One had registered a 9-

millimeter Glock handgun. The four suspects were known 

to be African-Americans. 

On December 11, Watters obtained a search warrant for 

two houses in Lancaster, California, where he believed he 

could find the suspects. The warrant authorized him to 

search the homes and three of the suspects for documents 

and computer files. In support of the search warrant an

affidavit cited various sources showing the suspects resided at respondents’ home. The sources included Department of Motor Vehicles reports, mailing address listings, an outstanding warrant, and an Internet telephone 

directory. In this Court respondents do not dispute the

validity of the warrant or the means by which it was 

obtained. 

What Watters did not know was that one of the houses 

(the first to be searched) had been sold in September to a 

Max Rettele. He had purchased the home and moved into 

it three months earlier with his girlfriend Judy Sadler and 

Sadler’s 17-year-old son Chase Hall. All three, respondents here, are Caucasians. 

On the morning of December 19, Watters briefed six

other deputies in preparation for the search of the houses.

Watters informed them they would be searching for three 

African-American suspects, one of whom owned a registered handgun. The possibility a suspect would be armed 

caused the deputies concern for their own safety. Watters 

had not obtained special permission for a night search, so

he could not execute the warrant until 7 a.m. See Cal. 

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 entered the house after ordering Hall to lie face down on the

ground. 
Cite as: 550 U. S. ____ (2007) 3 

Per Curiam 

The deputies’ announcement awoke Rettele and Sadler.

The deputies entered their bedroom with guns drawn and 

ordered them to get out of their bed and to show their

hands. They protested that they were not wearing clothes.

Rettele stood up and attempted to put on a pair of sweatpants, but deputies told him not to move. Sadler also 

stood up and attempted, without success, to cover herself 

with a sheet. Rettele and Sadler were held at gunpoint for 

one to two minutes before Rettele was allowed to retrieve 

a robe for Sadler. He was then permitted to dress. Rettele 

and Sadler left the bedroom within three to four minutes 

to sit on the couch in the living room.

By that time the deputies realized they had made a

mistake. They apologized to Rettele and Sadler, thanked 

them for not becoming upset, and left within five minutes. 

They proceeded to the other house the warrant authorized

them to search, where they found three suspects. Those 

suspects were arrested and convicted. 

Rettele and Sadler, individually and as guardians ad

litem for Hall, filed this §1983 suit against Los Angeles

County, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, 

Deputy Watters, and other members of the sheriff’s department. Respondents alleged petitioners violated their 

Fourth Amendment rights by obtaining a warrant in 

reckless fashion and conducting an unreasonable search

and detention. The District Court held that the warrant 

was obtained by proper procedures and the search was

reasonable. It concluded in the alternative that any 

Fourth Amendment rights the deputies violated were not

clearly established and that, as a result, the deputies were 

entitled to qualified immunity.

On appeal respondents did not challenge the validity of 

the warrant; they did argue that the deputies had conducted the search in an unreasonable manner. A divided 

panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed in an unpublished opinion. 186 Fed. Appx. 765 
4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. RETTELE 

Per Curiam 

(2006). The majority held that 

“because (1) no African-Americans lived in [respondents’] home; (2) [respondents], a Caucasian couple, 

purchased the residence several months before the 

search and the deputies did not conduct an ownership

inquiry; (3) the African-American suspects were not 

accused of a crime that required an emergency search; 

and (4) [respondents] were ordered out of bed naked 

and held at gunpoint while the deputies searched

their bedroom for the suspects and a gun, we find that 

a reasonable jury could conclude that the search and 

detention were ‘unnecessarily painful, degrading, or 

prolonged,’ and involved ‘an undue invasion of privacy,’ Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F. 3d 873, 876 (9th 

Cir. 1994).” Id., at 766. 

Turning to whether respondents’ Fourth Amendment 

rights were clearly established, the majority held that a 

reasonable deputy should have known the search and 

detention were unlawful. 

Judge Cowen dissented. In his view the deputies had

authority to detain respondents for the duration of the

search and were justified in ordering respondents from 

their bed because weapons could have been concealed 

under the bedcovers. He also concluded that, assuming 

a constitutional violation, the law was not clearly 

established. 

The Court of Appeals denied rehearing and rehearing en

banc. 

II 

Because respondents were of a different race than the

suspects the deputies were seeking, the Court of Appeals 

held that “[a]fter taking one look at [respondents], the

deputies should have realized that [respondents] were not 

the subjects of the search warrant and did not pose a

threat to the deputies’ safety.” Ibid. We need not pause 
Cite as: 550 U. S. ____ (2007) 5 

Per Curiam 

long in rejecting this unsound proposition. When the 

deputies ordered respondents from their bed, they had no

way of knowing whether the African-American suspects 

were elsewhere in the house. The presence of some Caucasians in the residence did not eliminate the possibility 

that the suspects lived there as well. As the deputies

stated in their affidavits, it is not uncommon in our society

for people of different races to live together. Just as people of different races live and work together, so too might

they engage in joint criminal activity. The deputies, who

were searching a house where they believed a suspect

might be armed, possessed authority to secure the premises before deciding whether to continue with the search. 

In Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692 (1981), this 

Court held that officers executing a search warrant for 

contraband may “detain the occupants of the premises

while a proper search is conducted.” Id., at 705. In weighing whether the search in Summers was reasonable the 

Court first found that “detention represents only an incremental intrusion on personal liberty when the search of

a home has been authorized by a valid warrant.” Id., at 

703. Against that interest, it balanced “preventing flight 

in the event that incriminating evidence is found”; “minimizing the risk of harm to the officers”; and facilitating 

“the orderly completion of the search.” Id., at 702–703; see 

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U. S. 93 (2005).

In executing a search warrant officers may take reasonable action to secure the premises and to ensure their own

safety and the efficacy of the search. Id., at 98–100; see 

also id., at 103 (KENNEDY, J., concurring); Summers, 

supra, at 704–705. The test of reasonableness under the 

Fourth Amendment is an objective one. Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 397 (1989) (addressing the reasonableness of a seizure of the person). Unreasonable actions 

include the use of excessive force or restraints that cause 

unnecessary pain or are imposed for a prolonged and 
6 LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. RETTELE 

Per Curiam 

unnecessary period of time. Mena, supra, at 100; Graham, 

supra, at 396–399. 

The orders by the police to the occupants, in the context 

of this lawful search, were permissible, and perhaps necessary, to protect the safety of the deputies. Blankets and 

bedding can conceal a weapon, and one of the suspects was

known to own a firearm, factors which underscore this 

point. The Constitution does not require an officer to

ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may sleep 

with a weapon within reach. The reports are replete with

accounts of suspects sleeping close to weapons. See 

United States v. Enslin, 327 F. 3d 788, 791 (CA9 2003) 

(“When [the suspect] put his hands in the air and began to 

sit up, his movement shifted the covers and the marshals 

could see a gun in the bed next to him”); see also United 

States v. Jones, 336 F. 3d 245, 248 (CA3 2003) (suspect 

kept a 9-millimeter Luger under his pillow while he slept); 

United States v. Hightower, 96 F. 3d 211 (CA7 1996) (suspect kept a loaded five-shot handgun under his pillow); 

State v. Willis, 36,759–KA, p. 3 (La. App. 4/9/03), 843 

So. 2d 592, 595 (officers “pulled back the bed covers and 

found a .38 caliber Model 10 Smith and Wesson revolver 

located near where defendant’s left hand had been”); State 

v. Kypreos, 115 Wash. App. 207, 61 P. 3d 352 (2002) (suspect kept a handgun in the bed).

The deputies needed a moment to secure the room and 

ensure that other persons were not close by or did not

present a danger. Deputies were not required to turn 

their backs to allow Rettele and Sadler to retrieve clothing 

or to cover themselves with the sheets. Rather, “[t]he risk

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 the deputies were free

to force Rettele and Sadler to remain motionless and 

standing for any longer than necessary. We have recog-
Cite as: 550 U. S. ____ (2007) 7 

Per Curiam 

nized that “special circumstances, or possibly a prolonged 

detention” might render a search unreasonable. See id., 

at 705, n. 21. There is no accusation that the detention 

here was prolonged. The deputies left the home less than

15 minutes after arriving. The detention was shorter and 

less restrictive than the 2- to 3-hour handcuff detention 

upheld in Mena. See 544 U. S., at 100. And there is no 

allegation that the deputies prevented Sadler and Rettele

from dressing longer than necessary to protect their 

safety. Sadler was unclothed for no more than two minutes, and Rettele for only slightly more time than that. 

Sadler testified that once the police were satisfied that no

immediate threat was presented, “they wanted us to get

dressed and they were pressing us really fast to hurry up 

and get some clothes on.” Deposition of Judy Lorraine

Sadler in No. CV–0206262–RSWL (RNBX) (CD Cal., June

10, 2003), Doc. 26, Exh. 4, p. 55.

The Fourth Amendment allows warrants to issue on 

probable cause, a standard well short of absolute certainty. Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, 

and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the 

cost. Officers executing search warrants on occasion enter

a house when residents are engaged in private activity; 

and the resulting frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation may be real, as was true here. When officers 

execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to 

protect themselves from harm, however, the Fourth

Amendment is not violated. 

As respondents’ constitutional rights were not violated,

“there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning 

qualified immunity.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 201 

(2001). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed,

and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered. 

JUSTICE SOUTER would deny the petition for a writ of 

certiorari. 
Cite as: 550 U. S. ____ (2007) 1 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. 

MAX RETTELE ET AL. 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED 

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 06–605. Decided May 21, 2007 

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins,

concurring in the judgment. 

This case presents two separate questions: (1) whether

the four circumstances identified in the Court of Appeals’ 

unpublished opinion established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the seizure violated respondents’ 

Fourth Amendment rights, see ante, at 4; (2) whether the

officers were nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity

because the right was not clearly established. The fact 

that the judges on the Court of Appeals disagreed on both 

questions convinces me that they should not have announced their decision in an unpublished opinion. 

In answering the first question, the Ninth Circuit majority relied primarily on Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F. 3d 873 

(CA9 1994). As Judge Cowen’s discussion of Franklin 

demonstrates, that case surely does not clearly establish

the unconstitutionality of the officers’ conduct.* Conse-

—————— 

*See 186 Fed. Appx. 765, 767 (2006) (dissenting opinion) (“In Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1994), we found unconstitutional 

the officers’ failure to provide clothing to a gravely ill man before

exposing his genitals to twenty-three strangers for over two hours,

under circumstances where there was no reason why the man was not 

given clothing. Id. at 876–78. We concluded that the detention was 

conducted in ‘a manner that wantonly and callously subjected an

obviously ill and incapacitated person to entirely unnecessary and

unjustifiable degradation and suffering.’ Id. at 878. Here, in contrast, 

Plaintiffs were not gravely ill, and their brief exposure, which lasted, at

most, three or four minutes, was outweighed by the safety risks associated with allowing two occupants to remain in bed under covers during 
2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY v. RETTELE 

STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment 

quently, regardless of the proper answer to the constitutional question, the defendants were entitled to qualified 

immunity. I would reverse on that ground and disavow 

the unwise practice of deciding constitutional questions in

advance of the necessity for doing so. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 859 (1998) (STEVENS, J., 

concurring in judgment). Accordingly, I concur in the 

Court’s judgment. 

—————— 

execution of a search warrant”).