Messerschmidt v. Millender
132 S. Ct. 1235
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Millenders sued LA County and officers for Fourth Amendment violation stemming from a warrant to search Bowen’s residence for firearms and gang materials; the warrant described broad categories including all firearms and gang indicia; the warrant was supported by affidavits detailing Bowen’s assault on Kelly and his gang ties; the magistrate approved night service; the search yielded firearms-related items and a shotgun belonging to a Millender; Bowen was later arrested and the Millenders sought damages for immunity-related defenses.
- The district court held the warrant overbroad for firearms and gang materials and denied qualified immunity; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit initially granted qualified immunity, then en banc affirmed denial; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity notwithstanding a warrant later deemed deficient.
- Messerschmidt conducted extensive background checks, prepared warrants to arrest Bowen and search his residence, and obtained approvals from a supervisor and a deputy district attorney before magistrate review; the warrant described broad searches for firearms and gang materials and included night service; the Millenders, elderly homeowners, were present during the search but Bowen was not found at the residence.
- The Court held that officers were not plainly incompetent and were entitled to qualified immunity for the firearms portion of the search, but reversed on the gang-materials portion, concluding the warrant was not obviously defective given the probable-cause standard and the officers’ reliance on sworn affidavits and supervisory approvals.
- The decision clarifies that magistrate approval and supervisor review do not automatically shield unlawful searches from liability; it rejects Groh v. Ramirez as controlling and emphasizes objective reasonableness in qualified immunity analysis under Malley v. Briggs and Leon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for the warrant. | Millenders: warrant overbroad; no probable cause for broad firearms/gang searches | Messerschmidt/Lawrence: reasonable reliance on magistrate and approvals; not plainly incompetent | Yes for firearms portion; No for gang-materials portion (in part) |
| Did magistrate approval foreclose liability under Malley? | Approval should not immunize overbroad search | Approval supports objective reasonableness | No automatic immunization; still need objective reasonableness |
| Was the Groh v. Ramirez rationale applicable? | Groh controls where warrant is facially defective | Groh distinguishable; defect not facial, but in application | Groh not controlling; not obviously defective on face |
| Does supervisory and prosecutorial review affect qualified immunity? | Review should not shield misconduct | Review relevant to reasonableness | Helpful but not dispositive; immunity remains if reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (clarifies qualified-immunity analysis standard)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (establishes objective-reasonableness focus for officials)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (defines reasonable belief in absence of intent to violate rights)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (probable-cause reliance and good faith in warrant context)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (limits on reliance on magistrate’s probable-cause determination)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (overbreadth of warrant; no automatic immunity for officers)
- Wilkins v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1999) (relevance of information possessed by officers in qualified-immunity analysis)