Thread: Hot Off The Press!!

Originally Posted by Dixie

redpony,

Looks like we were on the same page.

Dixie

Same page, different web site. That's OK it is double verification. And anyway, the discovery deserves a double mention.

Originally Posted by Dixie

tiny,

Did it sound like the Muehler v. Mena ruling?


Facts of the Case:

Police detained Mena and others in handcuffs while they searched the house they occupied. During the detention they asked Mena about her immigration status. The police had a search warrant to search the premises for deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership. Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. The district court ruled for Mena. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that using handcuffs to detain Mena during the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the officers' questioning of Mena about her immigration status also violated the Fourth Amendment.
Question:

(1) Did police violate the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure by detaining Mena in handcuffs for 2-3 they executed a search warrant for contraband on the premises she occupied? (2) Did police violate the Fourth Amendment by questioning Mena about her immigration status during the detention?
Conclusion:

No and no. In a 9-0 judgment delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that Mena's detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Officers with a search warrant for contraband had authority to detain occupants of the premisses during the search, in order to minimize any risk to officers. Handcuffing Mena while police searched for weapons and a wanted gang member was also justified by officer safety concerns and because officers had to deal with detaining multiple occupants. The Court further held that the officers' questioning of Mena about her immigration status during her detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers did not need to have reasonable suspicion to question Mena. Moreover, the Court had held repeatedly that mere police questioning did not constitute a seizure.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Muehler, 0 vote(s) against
http://bit.ly/9LCvTJ

Yes, it did sound like that ruling. Megyn said it was a Supreme Court ruling and it was unanimous. We need to get the transcript to be certain.

She also said it was a unanimous ruling.

send this to Obama and all the politicians who are anti Arizona.

i hope they youtube it too.

It was Muehler v. Mena. I am going to try to look for it.

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports.Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 03—1423

DARIN L. MUEHLER, et al., PETITIONERS v. IRIS
MENA
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[March 22, 2005]

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Iris Mena was detained in handcuffs during a search of the premises that she and several others occupied. Petitioners were lead members of a police detachment executing a search warrant of these premises. She sued the officers under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the District Court found in her favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the use of handcuffs to detain Mena during the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the officers’ questioning of Mena about her immigration status during the detention constituted an independent Fourth Amendment violation. Mena v. Simi Valley, 332 F.3d 1255 (CA9 2003). We hold that Mena’s detention in handcuffs for the length of the search was consistent with our opinion in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), and that the officers’ questioning during that detention did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights.

***

Based on information gleaned from the investigation of a gang-related, driveby shooting, petitioners Muehler and Brill had reason to believe at least one member of a gang–the West Side Locos–lived at 1363 Patricia Avenue. They also suspected that the individual was armed and dangerous, since he had recently been involved in the driveby shooting. As a result, Muehler obtained a search warrant for 1363 Patricia Avenue that authorized a broad search of the house and premises for, among other things, deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership. In light of the high degree of risk involved in searching a house suspected of housing at least one, and perhaps multiple, armed gang members, a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team was used to secure the residence and grounds before the search.

At 7 a.m. on February 3, 1998, petitioners, along with the SWAT team and other officers, executed the warrant. Mena was asleep in her bed when the SWAT team, clad in helmets and black vests adorned with badges and the word “POLICE,â€

I think the above may be it. I havent read all the way through it yet. What do you think?

Originally Posted by redpony353

I think the above may be it. I havent read all the way through it yet. What do you think?

As the Court of Appeals did not hold that the detention was prolonged by the questioning, there was no additional seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Hence, the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date and place of birth, or immigration status.

It looks to me like the 9th circuit court of appeals heard this case first, then it was referred to the Supreme Court who upheld this decision. Or is the 9th Circuit part of the Supreme Court. I'm not sure how this works. I do know that Arizona's immigration laws have continuously been upheld in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Megan was on O'Rielly...That sounds like the case she was talking about. O'Rielly comes on again after Greta 8:00 in the west, everyone who can should watch it, I will too.

Why don't we ever hear of these things in the news? This has to be known by alot of people, especially Judicial Watch

Seems to me Megan said Federal officers ( Ice agents, border patrol etc.) , because she said Federal Law is way tougher than AZ state law.

Of course we all know this is why they want CIR so they can gut the immigration nationality act of 1986 and the amendments of 1996 .

They never planned on enforcing them, they only did this to get their amnesties, but now they are being pressured to enforce the laws and people are learning more and more about what is law as this heats up.