Document: 544 U.S. 93 MUEHLER ET AL.v.MENA. No. 03-1423. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 8, 2004. Decided March 22, 2005. Respondent Mena and others were detained in handcuffs during a search the premises they occupied. Petitioners lead members police detachment executing warrant these for, inter alia, deadly weapons evidence gang membership. sued officers under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, District found her favor. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that use to detain violated Fourth Amendment officers' questioning about immigration status detention constituted an independent violation. Held: 1. Mena's for length did not violate Amendment. That is consistent with Michigan v. Summers, 452 692, 705, which held contraband have authority "to occupants while proper conducted." there noted minimizing risk harm substantial justification detaining occupant search, id., at 702-703, ruled officer's incident categorical does depend on "quantum proof justifying or extent intrusion be imposed by seizure," n. 19. Because existed was time duration reasonable Summers. Inherent Summers' authorization force effectuate detention. See Graham Connor, 490 386, 396. form because governmental interest both occupants, its maximum when authorizes wanted member resides premises, outweighs marginal intrusion. 396-397. Moreover, need multiple made all more reasonable. Cf. Maryland Wilson, 519 408, 414. Although can affect balance interests, 2- 3-hour this case outweigh government's continuing safety interests. Pp. 98-100. 2. rights. Circuit's contrary appears premised assumption required suspicion order so question Mena. However, has "held repeatedly mere constitute seizure." Florida Bostick, 501 429, 434. initial lawful hold prolonged questioning, no additional seizure within meaning Amendment, and, therefore, inquiring required. Illinois Caballes, 543 405, 407-408. 100-102. 3. address alternative argument extended beyond completed tasks declines it. See, e.g., Pierce County Guillen, 537 129, 148, 10. P. 102. 332 F. 3d 1255, vacated remanded. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion Court, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, post, p. STEVENS, judgment, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, joined, 104. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT. 2 Carter G. Phillips argued cause petitioners. With him briefs Joseph R. Guerra David H. Hirsch. 3 Kannon K. Shanmugam States as amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Acting Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Wray, Deputy Dreeben. 4 Paul L. Hoffman respondent. Benjamin Schonbrun, Michael Morrison, Erwin Chemerinsky.* 5 CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST Court. 6 Iris she several premises. She Rev. Stat. 1979, Appeals affirmed Simi Valley, F.3d 1255 (CA9 2003). We our 692 (1981), 7 * 8 Based information gleaned from investigation gang-related, driveby shooting, petitioners Muehler Brill had reason believe least one — West Side Locos lived 1363 Patricia Avenue. They also suspected individual armed dangerous, since he recently been involved shooting. As result, obtained Avenue authorized broad house among other things, In light high degree searching housing one, perhaps multiple, members, Special Weapons Tactics (SWAT) team used secure residence grounds before search. 9 At a.m. February 3, 1998, petitioners, along SWAT officers, executed warrant. asleep bed team, clad helmets black vests adorned badges word "POLICE," entered bedroom placed gunpoint. handcuffed three individuals property. then took those into converted garage, contained beds some furniture. While proceeded, two guarded four detainees, who allowed move around garage but remained handcuffs. 10 Aware composed primarily illegal immigrants, notified Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) would conducting INS officer accompanied During their asked each detainee's name, date birth, place status. later detainees documentation. permanent resident confirmed papers. 11 yielded .22 caliber handgun ammunition, box .25 baseball bats writing, various paraphernalia, bag marijuana. Before left area, released. 12 1983 suit against alleged "for unreasonable manner" violation App. addition, claimed execution overbroad, failed comply "knock announce" rule, needlessly destroyed property moved summary asserting entitled qualified immunity, denied motion. denial, except claim overbroad; immunity. 226 1031 2000). After trial, jury, pursuant special verdict form, Officers right free seizures greater than longer period jury awarded $10,000 actual damages $20,000 punitive petitioner total $60,000. 13 judgment grounds. Reviewing denial immunity de novo, 1261, 2, it first objectively confine keep 1263-1264. Appeals' view, should released soon became clear posed immediate threat. Id., 1263. court additionally 1264-1266. went rights clearly established thus 1266-1267. granted certiorari, 542 903 (2004), now vacate remand. 14 we 705. Such detentions are appropriate, explained, character caused slight justifications substantial. 701-705. "surely less intrusive itself," presence assures neutral magistrate determined probable exists home. 701. Against incremental intrusion, posited legitimate law enforcement interests provide occupant: "preventing flight event incriminating found"; "minimizing officers"; facilitating "the orderly completion search," detainees' "self-interest may induce them open locked doors containers avoid force." 702-703. 15 was, plainly permissible.1 An categorical; Thus, Summers 16 searched 396 (1989) ("Fourth jurisprudence long recognized make arrest investigatory stop necessarily carries physical coercion threat thereof effect it"). Indeed, itself stressed minimized "if routinely exercise unquestioned command situation." U.S., 703. 17 well Graham, supra, imposition correctly applied Mena, already being lawfully house, undoubtedly separate addition garage.2 upheld 701-702 (concluding warrant-sanctioned search); 413-414 (1997) ordering passengers out car, stopped, minimal). 18 But ordinary only detaining, using handcuffs, when, here, such inherently dangerous situations, minimizes occupants. 702-703 (recognizing drugs "may give rise sudden violence frantic efforts conceal destroy evidence"). Though inherent sufficient justify 414 (noting "danger traffic likely driver stopped car"). 19 argues that, even if matter, unreasonable. can, course, Graham. noted, weapons. conclude 20 F.3d, This holding, appears, concerning discrete event. premise faulty. 434 (1991); see Delgado, 466 210, 212 (1984). "[E]ven basis suspecting particular individual, generally ask questions individual; examine individual's identification; request consent his luggage." 434-435 (citations omitted). Hence, 21 Our recent 405 (2005), instructive. There, dog sniff performed "can become unlawful reasonably complete mission," accepted state court's determination sniff. 407. subject rejected notion shift purpose" "from drug investigation" "was supported any suspicion." 408. Likewise lawful; find detained. Thus required.3 22 summary, Additionally, advanced Appeals, affirming below. asserts contention, too decline (2003); National Collegiate Athletic Assn. Smith, 525 459, 469-470 (1999). 23 therefore vacated, remanded further proceedings opinion. 24 It ordered. Notes: Richard Ruda James I. Crowley League Cities et al. amici Briefs affirmance American Civil Liberties Union Mark D. Rosenbaum, Ahilan T. Arulanantham, Steven Shapiro, Lucas Guttentag, Lee Gelernt; Association Criminal Defense Lawyers Henk Brands Pamela Harris. Latino Baher Azmy, Lawrence Lustberg, Jonathan Hafetz; Police Research California Legal Fund J. Hansen. determining whether occurred draw factual inferences favor verdict, inOrnelas States, 517 690, 697-699 (1996), do defer jury's legal conclusion facts Constitution. finding improperly relied upon fact include suspect. SeeMena 1263, concerned locations particular, surrounding street respect, here resembles issue without mentioning including owner home whom ultimately arrested. People 407 Mich. 432, 440-443, 286 N.W.2d 226, 226-227 (1979), rev'd, supra. makes exists, "[t]he connection [a] home" alone "justifies occupant." 703-704. reliance onUnited Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873 (1975), misplaced. Brignoni-Ponce stops roving patrols near border justified amount require[ment] arrest." 880. considered "authority automobiles areas Mexican border," 874 (emphasis added), expressed appropriateness seized. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 543, 556-562 (1976). certainly not, suggested, create "requirement particularized purposes inquiry citizenship status." 1267. 25 concurring. 26 I concur seem important add statement help ensure handcuffing searches becomes neither routine nor unduly prolonged. 27 efficacy matters concern, matter concern excessive persons detained, especially persons, though themselves involvement criminal activity. force, must circumstances, 386 (1989). 28 reasonableness calculation part function expected If extends point real pain serious discomfort, provision alter conditions enough attend needs detainee. restraint removed if, readily apparent removing compromise interference delay spent hours, approaches, exceed, require revisiting necessity restraint, permissible excessive. 29 said, circumstances think understand record, much available watch over unarmed scene conducted extensive safe house. Even accept true assertions danger keeping deviated standard procedure, follow Where outnumber supervising them, situation could remedied diverting extensive, complex, time-consuming continued after sweep justified, adjustments temporary release supervision discomfort. record appear restraints excessive, join 30 BREYER join, judgment. 31 circumstances. post-trial motion arguments: (1) unconstitutionality conduct established;1 (2) judge's instruction erroneous;2 (3) support award damages. trial thoughtful explanation reasons denying either issues discusses today. 32 mistakes. First, explains, ante, 100-101, erroneously Amendment.3 Second, instead merely deciding sooner did. agree appropriate remand enable consider supports contention actually lasted. doing so, course accord deference findings, applying correct standard. Ornelas 699 (1996). 33 my however, Court's discussion analytically unsound. purports apply "objective reasonableness" test announced (1989), misapplies test. Given presumption reviewing supporting properly 5-foot-2-inch young lady scene, up hours. present valid executed, carte blanche pose throughout how last. On remand, instruct considers 34 notes, enter gun belonging Raymond Romero gang, related Romero, known rented room family. described "`poor house,'" unrelated Menas. Brief 4. Each own bedroom, padlock outside, access living kitchen. trailers back yard common spaces 5. 35 residence, although Romero's brother told returned Mexico. charge Brill, same few months earlier domestic call, believed inside occasion. 36 possessed might decided execute majority eight forcefully fact, bedroom. woke gunpoint, immediately her. time, served another mother, where stay nights week. mother previously cooperated serve mother's house; cited possession small marijuana, 37 Meanwhile, secured gave "all clear," transferred (who yard) garage.4 To get still bedclothes, forced walk barefoot through pouring rain. kept hours requested remove refused so. For detainees. A .22-caliber handgun, gang-related paraphernalia room. nothing significance bedroom.5 6-9. II 38 analyzing quantum detention, rightly employs Under trier "`the nature quality interests' countervailing stake." instructed take consideration factors severity crime, person investigation, poses security ability actively resisting attempting flee.'" ended. Ibid. Many taken itself, reflects entirely construction objective context. 39 Considering factors, team's actions When undertake assignment presumably occupied violence-prone overwhelming surprise promptly possible. decision heavily protection anticipated risk. turned out, sound asleep. Nevertheless, `reasonableness' judged perspective rather 20/20 vision hindsight." encountered way knowing relation affiliated Locos, person. Further, needed situation; quickly officers. expect entering what situation, spend necessary determine error. 40 Whether well-founded fears extraordinary entry interruption morning presumptively innocent person, depends specific case. respect used, totality concluded. regard different ways.6 Here, cuffs arms behind testified "`real uncomfortable'" refused. 105. continuously obviously virtually impossible removed. 41 number No There indications suggesting ever member, last visit home, present. fully agent, answering questions. unarmed, given size, match guarding sum, anyone else. offered persuasive. six guard Since residents sent offering assist seems unlikely lack resources really problem. ordinarily allocation resources, ample available. 43 skeptical testimony feared suspect shooting location general tactical plan arguably called just directed "[a]ny subjects will until patted down, [field identified], Officer Brill." Record 53. suggests often do, leader always 44 short, listed validly presented instructions, handcuff entire unreasonably period. whatsoever scene. crime targeted flee indication desired Viewing most favorable obvious rejecting acted unreasonably, facts, law. III 45 factor weigh balancing relevant factors. But, admitted sufficient, authorize every Nothing provides result. Rather, case-by-case basis. evidence, possibility completed, verdict. challenged petition certiorari waived. SeeTaylor Freeland & Kronz, 503 638, 645-646 (1992). judge follows: "`Generally, carrying "`In you look flee. unnecessarily painful, degrading, involves undue invasion privacy. ends concluded, whichever sooner.'" 1267-1268 2003) (alterations omitted; paragraph break added). issue, note raised respondent 55-year-old Latina female, 40-year-old male (INS), white early 30's marijuana One inMichigan willing "open damaging task hand." never Tr. (June 14, 2001). Instead, broke locks cabinets dressers keys. instance, fixed object, custodian, hands simply linked another. wrists front torso. tight particularly periods. restrict movement, preclude prisoner constant surveillance

Category: 0