Family Relationship Not Enough for Search or Detention and No Qualified Immunity for Officers if Ignored
A three member U.S. District Appeals Court for the District of New Mexico finds a familial (family) connection to a suspect supports neither probable cause for a search warrant, nor reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention of a relative. Further, officers who get this wrong can't raise "qualified immunity" as a defense in a § 1983 lawsuit.
This case demonstrates the difficulties that often arise between police powers and individuals' privacy rights. Those who favor broader police powers will decry this ruling and argue it will have a chilling effect on law enforcement. Alternatively, others will celebrate a ruling which recognizes individuals' protections from unreasonable search and seizures (due primarily to a familial relationship) and that also gives these rights a civil remedy which has some teeth.
In this case (PDF here), officers obtained a warrant and ordered the search of a murder suspect's in-laws' property. Later, officers also stopped the suspect's sister-in-law in an investigative detention. The court held the officers actions in both cases violated the in-laws' Fourth Amendment rights and ruled,
we hold that a familial relationship is insufficiently particularized to justify invading an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. ... Applying this rule to the present case, we conclude that the...status as...in-laws, combined with the meager additional facts..., were insufficient to support a finding of either probable cause to search the property or reasonable suspicion to detain [the sister-in-law.]
The officers unsuccessfully argued, in part, the search of the in-laws' property was constitutional because it was authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause. In a 2-1 split, the majority disagreed and found because these Fourth Amendment principles were clearly established, the intrusions were unreasonable. Further, the majority held the officers are not entitled to raise qualified immunity as a defense to the in-laws' civil suit against them. Justice O'Brien, dissenting, stated,
Regrettably, I can find comfort in no part of the majority opinion.
In support of the officers actions, O'Brien argues,
[a] law trained judge found the affidavit sufficient to establish probable cause and issued the warrant....
...
Qualified immunity seeks to...[shield] officers from damages liability for the performance of their discretionary functions so long as their actions are objectively reasonable in light of the clearly established law at the time of their actions....That standard "gives ample room for mistaken judgments," protecting "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."
The majority dismissed the dissent's arguments and found the officers could be liable in a § 1983 claim because they had a duty to exercise professional judgment objectively and despite any approval by a judge,
employ[ing] a reasonable process in seeking the warrant" does not relieve officers of their constitutional duty to "exercise their own professional judgment" as to the existence of probable cause.
SUMMARY
U.S. District Appeals Court for the District of New Mexico finds:
- "A familial relationship to someone suspected of criminal activity, without more, does not constitute probable cause to search or arrest."
- Officers failing to heed this interpretation may be subject to civil liability under a § 1983 lawsuit without the protection of a "qualified immunity" defense.
