Rivera Rodriguez v. Beninato, No. 05-2748. The best lesson to be learned from this case is: don’t be poor. See, poor people don’t really have as robust fourth amendment rights as rich people. They are subject to busts. They are never shown the warrant. They are handcuffed in their nightclothes. Rich people are not. Because we are fighting a “war on poverty” the courts recognize that some deference is in order to the government, in its prosecution of such a war. This Bivens case is no exception, and the First stretches to provide the government with the best qualified immunity in the world.
So, here it comes:
- "The warrant supporting the search of Ms. Rodríguez’s home contained no description of the property to be seized. In the space on the form calling for the magistrate to “describe the person or property” believed to be on the premises to be searched, the warrant simply restated the description of the premises to be searched." Even though the First has rejected such cross-references, (in In re Lafayette Acad., 610 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1979), a case dealing only with rich people), “A reasonable officer standing in defendants’ shoes could believe the warrant to be sufficient to authorize the search.” So, qualified immunity lets them do what they want with impunity.
- The application for the warrant, despite relying on anonymous sources, was good enough. even though it didn’t have much particularity as to why the sources knew what they did know.
- And, all of the technical arguments that rich people (or the government) can make are dismissed. Without explanation, the Court holds that there is no requirement that the targets be shown the warrant, and a discrepancy in time of execution is considered too small to matter.
Another victory for affluence!
Comments