McCleary v. Navarro Et Ux.

Background

A detective obtained a search warrant after a confidential informant said Andres Villa lived in the second house on the right along an access road. The informant omitted a first building set back on a separate driveway, so the warrant pointed to the second house on the right. Officers who executed the warrant counted the houses differently and went to the wrong house around 11:00 p.m., kicking at the door. The homeowners sued under the federal civil-rights law, claiming a Fourth Amendment violation. The trial court denied the detective’s request for immunity, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the officer who wrote the affidavit is entitled to qualified immunity. The Ninth Circuit said a jury should decide if the officer reasonably described the location. A recent Supreme Court decision decided just before this case said the right test asks whether a reasonable officer could have believed his conduct lawful, not whether others would have acted differently, and that immunity issues are generally for judges to decide.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused to review the case, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling remains in place and the lawsuit continues under that court’s view. Practically, the detective did not obtain Supreme Court immunity relief, and the legal disagreement over the correct immunity test remains unresolved by the high court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by three other Justices, dissented. He would have reversed and sent the case back, saying the Ninth Circuit applied the wrong legal standard and should reexamine whether the officer is immune under the correct test.