SCOTUS Grants cert. for Millender v. Los Angeles

[Theseus]

This is not a 2nd Amendment case, it's a 4th Amendment case. Since the police were acting on a warrant issued by a judge, I'm reasonably certain that qualified immunity will be upheld, probably by a large margin. And then there are the facts that this is an appeal of a decision made by the 9th Circus, the most overturned appellate court in the country. And that Mr. Bowen is not exactly a model citizen.* I'm betting on at least a 6-3 in favor of reversal, with a good chance for a 9-0 shutout.

Personally, I don't think it is wise for the NRA to take on the law enforcement community and certainly not on an immunity question. From a purely practical perspective, the simple reality is that the courts (and arguably legislatures as well) are generally pro-law enforcement. Taking on the law enforcement community and on an immunity question may result in a devastating backlash.

* The following is a description of Mr. Bowen's activities by the 9th Circus:

In other words, not exactly the most sympathetic poster boy for a fight for constitutional rights.

Obviously what is not probable cause for one is probable cause for another. I happen to think that since the residence belonged to a close relative of Bowen, the search of the residence was justified.

Nor do I see any particular reason to limit the seizure to the specific weapon used to attempt to kill Kelly. Bowen was a threat to public safety. Not only was he someone known to be a gang member, not only did he attempt to murder Kelly, the request for the warrant specifically pointed out the public safety issue:



- from the 9th Circuit again

So, this is not just a question of apprehending a criminal who attempted to commit a murder. This is also about confiscating his means of committing murder so that even if he was not immediately arrested, his means to endanger the community would be significantly curtailed.

Finally, I still don't know exactly what this speculation about Bowen's mother lying is based upon or why it should have any bearing on the case.

I have great respect for the NRA's work on defending the 2nd Amendment, but the presence of guns in this case is incidental. This is a 4th Amendment case. The 2 questions before the Court have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. I'm not sure that the NRA's expertise extends to the 4th Amendment. Even in 2nd Amendment cases, the NRA had its share of defeats. (See, for example, Farmer v. Higgins; 11th Circuit, 1990)

I think the NRA needs to stand against ALL abuses LEO or otherwise. To say that they need to step off police is ridiculous. But more important, the issue is, who's guns were they? If they weren't his guns, where is their right to confiscate in the first place?

I have a crackhead for a son, that the Feds are looking for. . . They execute a search warrant and take all my guns, even though I am not a convicted felon. How is that right, just because I have a crackhead for a son?

I think the question will revolve around exactly how far the chain of seizure extends.

[htjyang]

Interesting. I wasn't aware that NRA stands for National Rifle, Proper Search and Seizure, And Who Knows What Else Association. (Whatever happened to truth in labeling?) It seems to me that if the NRA wishes to expand its mission, it should at least notify its membership first. I suspect some of its LEO members will not wish to belong to an organization dedicated to strip them of their immunity.

I'm reminded of what happened when the ABA went massively pro-criminal. The prosecutors resigned from the ABA en masse, gravely weakening their influence. I'd hate to see something similar happen to the NRA.

[socal2310]

Interesting. I wasn't aware that NRA stands for National Rifle, Proper Search and Seizure, And Who Knows What Else Association. (Whatever happened to truth in labeling?) It seems to me that if the NRA wishes to expand its mission, it should at least notify its membership first. I suspect some of its LEO members will not wish to belong to an organization dedicated to strip them of their immunity.

I'm reminded of what happened when the ABA went massively pro-criminal. The prosecutors resigned from the ABA en masse, gravely weakening their influence. I'd hate to see something similar happen to the NRA.

Really, so you object to the role the NRA played in getting firearms returned to their rightful owners following Katrina? After all, that was only tangentially 2A related.

An overly broad interpretation of qualified immunity may indeed be a casualty if the case goes the way we want it to, but only in the sense of it being collateral damage. The primary issue the NRA/CRPA want to address is the seizure of firearms based on an overly broad warrant. You will note that they didn't bring this case, they are only filing briefs in support of the plaintiffs. I suspect that they are more concerned with limiting damage to gun owners who remain a target of specious warrants in anti-gun jurisdictions. Like it or not, these people have the same rights as the rest of us even if they have a dirt-bag relative. Be assured that if this case goes against the plaintiffs, the decision will be used to justify seizures against other gun owners with no criminal "color" associated with their cases.

Ryan

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Two questions, how many votes are needed to grant cert. and do we know the vote?

A comment about the detailed description of the incident, the assault happened at the guy's shared residence. That is where he lived but somehow they get an overly broad warrant for his mother's place.

I hope the 9'th circuit decision stands.

Yup.

In other words, not exactly the most sympathetic poster boy for a fight for constitutional rights.

You should look up Ernesto Miranda some time. Yet, his case still gave us good law.


The Raisuli

[socal2310]

* The following is a description of Mr. Bowen's activities by the 9th Circus:

...

In other words, not exactly the most sympathetic poster boy for a fight for constitutional rights.

I missed this little gem earlier, you do understand that Mr. Bowen is not a party to the suit don't you?

Incidentally, someone ought to address the chilling effect a negative outcome for the plaintiff might have on the recruitment of foster families. If this had been the family's natural or adopted son, I might have more sympathy for the defendants. I grew up with foster children in the home and knew many other foster families. The majority of teenagers were already proto-criminals - often with no criminal history - by the time they wound up being placed and CPS often wasn't entirely forthcoming about the baggage they carried.

Ryan

[scarville]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Isn't it amazing we are even here?

It Fourth Amendment was good idea. Too bad it didn't last.

The Fourth Amendment has been hung on a cross made with the timber of convoluted legal rationalizations. Its wrists and feet are pinioned by nails forged from Supreme Court decisions heated in the furnace of creative law enforcement interpretation. All that is left now is to break its legs to hasten the end.

[tyrist]

I was told by a former Police Lieutenant in my area that he has never seen a warrant not approved by a judge and that they are basically rubber stamped.

Well considering how many people review the warrant PRIOR to it's submission to a judge that statement isn't too far off. The Dept would not submit a warrant to a judge unless it was pretty much 100% certain a judge would sign it. The police don't just sit and write up warrants to see what sticks. If you brought a judge a POS warrant what occurs will not be pleasant.

[htjyang]

Really, so you object to the role the NRA played in getting firearms returned to their rightful owners following Katrina? After all, that was only tangentially 2A related.

An overly broad interpretation of qualified immunity may indeed be a casualty if the case goes the way we want it to, but only in the sense of it being collateral damage. The primary issue the NRA/CRPA want to address is the seizure of firearms based on an overly broad warrant. You will note that they didn't bring this case, they are only filing briefs in support of the plaintiffs. I suspect that they are more concerned with limiting damage to gun owners who remain a target of specious warrants in anti-gun jurisdictions. Like it or not, these people have the same rights as the rest of us even if they have a dirt-bag relative. Be assured that if this case goes against the plaintiffs, the decision will be used to justify seizures against other gun owners with no criminal "color" associated with their cases.

Ryan

I'm not aware that the Hurricane Katrina/New Orleans issue was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court and that it changed LEO immunity throughout the country. This case, however, has the potential to do so.

I missed this little gem earlier, you do understand that Mr. Bowen is not a party to the suit don't you?

Of course, but you might want to read the cert petition. Why do you think it led off with Mr. Bowen's criminal activities?

It did so because it intends to argue the public safety angle. Let's not kid ourselves here. This whole incident only happened as a consequence of Bowen's criminality and the petitioner has every intention to remind the Court of that fact.

[htjyang]

You should look up Ernesto Miranda some time. Yet, his case still gave us good law.The Raisuli

I must respectfully dissent on that point. See the dissent in Dickerson v. US and also here. Suffice it to say for now: Some of us are working to slowly chip away at it with the goal of getting rid of Miranda v. Arizona some day. See Maryland v. Shatzer (2010).

[eaglemike]

I must respectfully dissent on that point. See the dissent in Dickerson v. US and also here. Suffice it to say for now: Some of us are working to slowly chip away at it with the goal of getting rid of Miranda v. Arizona some day. See Maryland v. Shatzer (2010).

interesting......

[kmrtnsn]

Prediction: SCOTUS will overrule the 9thCCA on the immunity issue and find the warrant was not overly broad. They may also tighten or create a balance test for wording in future affidavits.

[Quser.619]

It did so because it intends to argue the public safety angle. Let's not kid ourselves here. This whole incident only happened as a consequence of Bowen's criminality and the petitioner has every intention to remind the Court of that fact.

Public safety? Seriously? So any other person's illegal activities allow Law Enforcement to confiscate my weapons because I am related to someone who is allegedly armed & dangerous, regardless of whether they live there? In this case, he did not. The weapons were not proven to be his, were not used in the crime he was alleged to have committed & used to justify the warrant in question...

At worst, the police should have temporary held onto the weapons & then returned them to the rightful owner w/ an apology. Best, they should have ascertained that the suspect did not live there & left.

I can see why the CPRA & the NRA are involved. Depending upon the ruling, if my cousin, anywhere in the US, is accused of a felony, I can now expect a SWAT team to knock down my door, take my weapons & keep them? For public safety.

I am more & more grateful my NRA membership each & every day

[htjyang]

the police should have temporary held onto the weapons & then returned them to the rightful owner w/ an apology.

I concur with this part of your post. Your cousin hypothetical is simply impertinent to the issue at hand considering that Bowen's foster mother lived in the same city where the attempted murder took place. As for your gratitude to the NRA, I wonder whether it will stay intact if the Court ruled to support LEO immunity and further curtail the 4th Amendment. A ruling like that will have profound implications throughout the entire country.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I must respectfully dissent on that point. See the dissent in Dickerson v. US and also here. Suffice it to say for now: Some of us are working to slowly chip away at it with the goal of getting rid of Miranda v. Arizona some day. See Maryland v. Shatzer (2010).

My point was that Mr. Miranda being a slimeball didn't prevent SCOTUS from making a good ruling. While very interesting, nothing here contradicts that.


The Raisuli

[Mulay El Raisuli]

I concur with this part of your post. Your cousin hypothetical is simply impertinent to the issue at hand considering that Bowen's foster mother lived in the same city where the attempted murder took place. As for your gratitude to the NRA, I wonder whether it will stay intact if the Court ruled to support LEO immunity and further curtail the 4th Amendment. A ruling like that will have profound implications throughout the entire country.

A legitimate fear. Still, the alternative is to do nothing & watch our rights lowly fade away. Better by far to try to stop the nonsense.


The Raisuli