Here is a link to the ruling itself.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-605.pdf
Brief history of incident:
A valid search warrant was issued for a home of two African-Americans that, unknown to the officer, had moved out a couple months earlier. During the search two Caucasian in a bedroom were ordered out of bed while the bedroom was searched. Being nude when they were ordered out of bed, they wear denied clothing for a few minutes while the room was searched. It was only after the search was completed that they confirmed the suspects they were looking for were not there.
Issue at hand:
Suit was brought to District court claiming the officers violated their 4th Amendment right by “obtaining a warrant in reckless fashion and conducting an unreasonable search and detention.” The District court ruled against the couple finding that the warrant was obtained legally and the search was reasonable.
On appeal to the 8th Circuit the validity of the warrant wasn’t challenged. What was argued was that unreasonable. The 8th Circuit found the the search was unreasonable based on the following:
“because (1) no African-Americans lived in [respon
dents’] home; (2) [respondents], a Caucasian couple,
purchased the residence several months before the
search and the deputies did not conduct an ownership
inquiry; (3) the African-American suspects were not
accused of a crime that required an emergency search;
and (4) [respondents] were ordered out of bed naked
and held at gunpoint while the deputies searched
their bedroom for the suspects and a gun, we find that
a reasonable jury could conclude that the search and
detention were ‘unnecessarily painful, degrading, or
prolonged,’ and involved ‘an undue invasion of pri
vacy,’ Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F. 3d 873, 876 (9th
Cir. 1994).” Id., at 766.
The 8th Circuit said that the presence of Caucasian instead of African-Americans should have been sufficient proof to the officers that they had the wrong people. The Supremes disagreed with this ruling by the 8th Circuit based on its logical flaws. According to them:
"When the deputies ordered respondents from their bed,
they had no way of knowing whether the African-
American suspects were elsewhere in the house. The
presence of some Cau-casians in the residence did not
eliminate the possibility that the suspects lived there as
well. As the deputiesstated in their affidavits, it is not
uncommon in our societyfor people of different races
to live together. Just as peo-ple of different races live
and work together, so too mightthey engage in joint
criminal activity. The deputies, whowere searching a
house where they believed a suspectmight be armed,
possessed authority to secure the prem-ises before
deciding whether to continue with the search."
The Supremes also cited passed precedent rulings that say officers do have the right to secure the area they are searching of possible threats. They continued to say that it was reasonable for the officers to believe that weapons could be hidden under bedding or clothing. Also, the officers didn’t subject them to standing in the nude for an unreasonable amount of time, only for that time necessary to confirm the area is secure.
I actually agree with this ruling. The officers legally (and in good faith) obtained an executed a valid warrent. Based on the facts at hand to the officers I don't feel feel they overstepped the bounds of "reasonableness" in their actions while executing the warrent.
As others have said, this decision definitely doesn’t extend the 4th Amendment but it also doesn’t erode the 4th Amendment either.
