Naked truth

AS RESIDENTS OF the Los Angeles area don’t have to be told, law enforcement officers sometimes misbehave in ways that violate individual rights and call for severe sanctions. But a ruling Monday by the U.S. Supreme Court is a reminder that it’s unwise to make a federal case out of every misstep by the police.

Dec. 19, 2001, was a bad day for Max Rettele and Judy Sadler. They were in bed in their Lancaster home -- and not wearing pajamas -- early that morning when L.A. County sheriff’s deputies arrived with drawn guns and a search warrant. The deputies ordered the couple to get out of bed and show their hands, and at first wouldn’t allow them to cover their nakedness.

A few minutes later, the deputies were apologizing to the now-clothed couple. Although the address on the warrant matched the couple’s residence, the targets of the search -- three suspected identity thieves -- had moved out before Rettele and Sadler had moved in. Also, the suspects were African Americans; Rettele and Sadler are white.

Unappeased by the deputies’ apology, the couple sued the officers and L.A. County, complaining that they had been victims of an “unreasonable search” in violation of the 4th Amendment. A federal district judge rejected the suit, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it.

The appeals court reasoned that the sight of even some of the skin of the bed’s occupants should have alerted the deputies that they “were not the subjects of the search warrant and did not pose a threat to the deputies’ safety.” Therefore, a jury might conclude that the search was “unnecessarily painful, degrading or prolonged.”

To which the Supreme Court responded: “We need not pause long in rejecting this unsound proposition” -- judge-speak for “Are you crazy?” In an opinion siding with the deputies, the high court noted that when they ordered Rettele and Sadler out of bed, “they had no way of knowing whether the African American suspects were elsewhere in the house.” As for the refusal to let the couple cover themselves, the court noted, correctly, that “blankets and bedding can conceal a weapon.”

Eight justices ruled that the sheriff’s deputies’ mistake didn’t deprive them of the qualified immunity to lawsuits generally enjoyed by police. Six justices went further and ruled that the search itself was legal. Only Justice David H. Souter would have let the 9th Circuit ruling stand.

While the facts in this case are unusual, not to say humorous, the bottom line is important: Even when police follow the law, pursuit of the guilty will sometimes inconvenience -- and embarrass -- the innocent.