Document: 526 U.S. 286119 S.Ct. 1292143 L.Ed.2d 399 CONN v. GABBERT(97-1802)131 F.3d 793, reversed. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES119 No. 97 1802 DAVID and CAROL NAJERA, PETITIONERS PAUL L. GABBERT ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO STATES APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT [April 5, 1999] Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of Court. 1 We granted certiorari in this case, 525 (1998), to decide whether a prosecutor violates an attorney's Fourteenth Amendment right practice his profession when causes attorney be searched at same time client is testifying before grand jury. conclude that such conduct by does not violate profession. 2 This case arises out high-profile California trials "Menendez Brothers," Lyle Erik Menendez, for murder their parents. Petitioners David Conn Carol Najera are Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorneys, respondent Paul Gabbert criminal defense attorney. In early 1994, after first Menendez trial ended hung jury, Attorney's Office assigned prosecute on retrial. learned had written letter Traci Baker, former girlfriend, which he may have instructed her testify falsely trial. represented who testified as witness obtained served Baker with subpoena directing jury also produce any correspondence she received from Menendez. After unsuccessfully sought quash portion correspondence, warrant search Baker's apartment correspondence. When police tried execute warrant, told given all letters Gabbert. 3 Three days later, March 21, appeared directed accompanied Believing might person, detective secure law provides must executed court-appointed special master. Special Master arrived, requested take place private room. He did request client's testimony postponed. The room, produced two pages three-page Baker. 4 At approximately was taking place, called began question her. being sworn, asked acquainted replied been unable speak because "still master." Brief 6. A short recess taken during aware him, but apparently stated prosecutors would simply delay questioning until they finished searching him. returned room declined answer "upon advice my counsel" basis Fifth privilege against self-incrimination. Id., 7. follow-up question, again confer locate Gabbert, asserted privilege. point, recessed. 5 actions were illegal, brought suit them other officials Federal Court under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. 1983. Relevant appeal Najera, contended without unreasonable government interference violated jury.* moved summary judgment qualified immunity, motion. 6 Appeals reversed part, holding entitled immunity Gabbert's claim. 131 793 (CA9 1997). Relying Board Regents State Colleges Roth, 408 564, 572 (1972), earlier cases recognizing choose one's vocation, concluded undue interference. F.3d, 800. held based upon notions " 'common sense,' id., 801, allegedly clearly established, result, immunity: "The plain intended result [of prosecutors' actions] prevent consulting appearance. These objectively reasonable, thus protected answering claim." 802 803. certiorari, now reverse. 7 Section 1983 federal cause action person who, acting color state law, deprives another rights. order prevail civil damages official performing discretionary functions, our recognized requires shown "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights reasonable known." Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 818 (1982). Thus court determine plaintiff has alleged deprivation actual all, if so, proceed violation. See Siegert Gilley, 500 226, 232 233 (1991); see Sacramento Lewis, 523 833, 841, n. (1998). 8 find no support conclusion case. relied primarily Roth. repeated pronouncement Meyer Nebraska, 262 390, 399, (1923) liberty guaranteed 'denotes merely freedom bodily restraint individual contract, engage common occupations life, acquire useful knowledge, marry, establish home bring up children, worship God according dictates own conscience, generally enjoy those privileges long . essential orderly pursuit happiness free men.' supra, (quoting Meyer, 399). But neither Roth nor even came close identifying "right" substantive due process forebade enacting statute prohibited teaching language than English. U.S., 402 403. And procedural at-will college professor "property" interest job within meaning so require university hold hearing terminating 578. Neither will bear weight placed it either Gabbert: supports deprived practicing law. 9 Similarly, none suggested provide more scant metaphysical idea use actors line cases, indicated component Amendment's Due Process Clause includes some generalized field employment, nevertheless subject regulation. See, e.g., Dent West Virginia, 129 114 (1889) (upholding requirement licensing can medicine); Truax Raich, 239 33, 41 (1915) (invalidating equal protection grounds requiring companies employ 80% United States citizens). deal complete prohibition calling, sort brief interruption occurred here. 10 relies Schware Bar Examiners N. M., 353 232, 238 (1957), proposition cannot exclude reasons contravene Clause. membership Communist Party arrest record relating union activities could completely excluding Like Dent, Truax, legal process. No intrusion rise level violation follow calling. That infringed inevitable interruptions daily routine us experience time. 11 next argues improper timing interfered him outside available consult counsel present proceeding, Mandujano, 425 581 (1976), decision need today exists, standing raise infringement Tracy "[T]he assert interests, rest claim relief interests third parties." Warth Seldin, 422 490, 499 (1975). 12 course complain execution advising client. essence then, manner. where provision Constitution "provides explicit textual source protection," assess plaintiff's claims "not notion 'substantive process.' Graham Conner, 490 386, 395 (1989). Challenges reasonableness agents fall Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth. 13 calling calculated annoy consultation witness. holding, we pretermit established" day. contrary therefore 14 It ordered. Notes 15 *. * §1983 Amendment. express it. Stevens, J., concurring 16 17 18 19 judgment. 20 Respondent petitioners unreasonably service papers. There is, however, evidence respondent's income, reputation, clientele, professional qualifications adversely affected search. Nor there real allegation substantially prejudiced what occurred. App. Pet. Cert. B 17. Accordingly, despite shabby character petitioners' conduct, I agree deprive property 21 My reached independently method conducting arguably issue squarely presented argued If reason why cease exist just provision. suggestion penultimate paragraph Court's possible existence second sufficient reversal, ante, quite unpersuasive. Indeed, ground valid, most reasoning preceding unnecessary decision.

Category: 7