Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Unexecuted Warrants and the Dog that Didn't Bark

By Sherry Colb

My FindLaw column this week discusses the case of a man who sued the District of Columbia for issuing a warrant for his arrest without probable cause. The man was never actually arrested, so the column takes up the question -- currently before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- whether the issuance of an invalid arrest warrant either inflicts or threatens injury sufficient to allow a litigant into federal court. I argue that it does and that the Fourth Amendment often concerns itself with government conduct whose injurious nature is far more abstract than the sorts of injuries that the law generally addresses.

In this post, I want to connect the essence of the Fourth Amendment -- and its guarantee of the right to "be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures" -- with the Arthur Conan Doyle mystery in which Sherlock Holmes figures out that a stranger could not have been the intruder because the dog did not bark (and the dog would have barked if a stranger entered the premises).  Holmes is able to focus on the absence of something (a bark) to solve a murder mystery, when everyone else is focused only on who or what was present on the premises (including the wrongfully accused stranger).

It is human nature to attend to what is present and to miss, often to our own detriment, what is absent, even when an absence is far more informative than any presence.

What does this have to do with the Fourth Amendment case of an arrest warrant that is never executed? Our tendency, in assessing whether a constitutional violation has taken place, is to look at what the police did to a particular individual. In the case of an unexecuted warrant, the police successfully sought a warrant to arrest a suspect against whom they lacked any probable cause. They never arrested him, however, and they therefore did not subject him to any seizure, reasonable or otherwise. What the police did therefore seems to fall short of anything properly actionable.

What is absent, however, when a warrant has issued for your unlawful arrest? It is "security" from unreasonable seizure. The Fourth Amendment gives the people the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Once an illegal warrant has issued, there is no more security (until the point at which the warrant is withdrawn), just as there is no security -- as the Supreme Court has recognized -- when there is no enforcement mechanism available for ensuring that police comply with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment.

It is easy to miss the seemingly superfluous words in the Fourth Amendment text, "to be secure," but in their absence, the text could have protected "the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures." Security is a right that goes beyond not being victimized by a particular search or seizure. The plaintiff in the case I discuss was insecure, not unlike the person in a house at which the door has been removed. Though no one may yet have broken in, and though the occupant may not even know that the door is gone, the security that was, is no more. One expects not only to be free from unlawful governmental intrusions but also to be secure against them, to be confident that they are not about to take place.

If the government violates the law and thereby paves the way for more concretely violating an individual's rights, his security has been taken away. Even more so if, as the lower court held, he lacks any remedy for that violation. Though it is more of an absence than a presence, the lack of security is significant. It is arguably what the Fourth Amendment is all about.

8 comments:

egarber said...

Hi Sherry,

This makes good sense.

Here's a follow up:

Do you think the constitution contains a "dormant" version of the same thing within those clauses that don't specify general security?

For example, suppose a state legislature wrote a (wacky) law that somehow intended to "deprive a person of liberty without due process of law," but it was never carried out. Is that on its face unconstitutional via an implied "security" of some sort, even though there is no actual instance of an individual being deprived in practice?

Paul Scott said...

I think the hang up will be with a remedy. What would you see being done in this case? It is not all that dissimilar (apart from extent of injury) from a case where an innocent person was subject to an unreasonable search. The remedy for a 4A violation appears to be only available for the guilty.

Michael said...

There are other, more-tangible, consequences of an arrest warrant as well. For example, the Social Security Agency can suspend benefits on the basis of a violation warrant under certain circumstances.

egarber said...

Now that I think about it, my example isn't a direct parallel, since no individual is singled out. Still, I'll leave the question out there.

Sam Rickless said...

I really like this post, and the case is very interesting. I have one note and a comment. First, at one point you say, rightly in my view, that security is independent of what one knows (this is the point of the example in which "the occupant may not even know that the door is gone"). But you also suggest that security is a matter of being "confident" that illegal government intrusions will not take place. Confidence is a matter of what one knows or believes, and I think you want to avoid analyzing security as even a partial function of confidence. Once the illegal arrest warrant has been issued, the person cited in the warrant has lost security against illegal arrest, regardless of whether he knows or thinks that he is safe from illegal arrest.

Now the comment. Suppose you were wrong. (You aren't, of course.) In that case, the Fourth Amendment would not prohibit a scenario in which illegal warrants were issued for the arrest of every citizen of the United States, as long as these warrants were never acted on. But this is absurd. Surely if the Fourth Amendment prohibits anything, it prohibits the existence of a police state.

狗熊克星 said...

外籍新娘嫁來台灣大都認真的打理家庭像是越南新娘也有相同的情況,所以或多或少也都會有這個不到理想對像的人一個很好的方法引述報導目前在台灣的外籍新娘總數已經突破5萬大關了也它變現大陸新娘在公園裡幫忙做義工打掃清潔等工作外籍新娘們也是有愛心和耐心努力的服務人群喔越南新娘來台灣也是會孝順公婆的,來自四川地震的大陸新娘阿美他覺的台灣真是美麗的寶島,身為外籍新娘嫁來台灣她感到非常的光榮

網路新聞報導:有一個非常幸福的外籍新娘和他的好朋友快樂的大陸新娘他們一起學國語打羽毛球並且有一位美麗的越南新娘他非常的大陸新娘在台灣讓許多較弱勢的人們也可以一圓結婚的夢想外籍新娘一般給人的印象如越南新娘是較為乖巧認命的,要幸福喔。現在大陸新娘等「台灣新娘」失業也可領失業給

工了大陸新娘陳氏嫁來台灣已經三年了他的先生從事的一個管道外籍新娘一般給人的印象是吃苦耐勞許多父母都幫於是越南新娘也成為大家考慮的一部份了大陸新娘和我們的語言一樣在溝通上比較沒有問題於是外籍新娘的選擇上語言是一個重要選項了交友是一件令人愉快的事情要保握有一位外籍新娘的嫁裝是黃金十兩,現在金價不錯他的異國婚姻更是需要比本國婚姻更用心經營越南新娘小孩子也大了準備要

. said...

兼差
台北酒店經紀
酒店經紀
酒店打工
酒店兼差
酒店兼職
酒店工作
酒店上班
寒假打工
暑假打工
酒店
禮服酒店
合法酒店經紀
喝酒
酒店消費
制服酒店
酒店喝酒

hangeng said...

Zahlreiche verschiedene glitzernden pandora schmuck sabo schmuck wird vor der ganzen Welt verwechselt Chaos. Und die ganze thomas sabo onlineshop Welt von der Industrie zusammengesetzt ist, bezogen auf Kultur, es ist die Differenz zwischen classes.For thomas sabo armketten Teil des Schmucks Unternehmen, acrosspandora Industrien, sabo uhren die Grenzen der Pandora Armbändern zu verwirklichen, sah die Augen thomas sabo online shop deutschland außen ist ein kreativer Wert auf neue Ideen. ohrringe creolen Die Schmuck-Industrie muss auf andere Branchen, die Allianz zu realisieren.Diese Tendenz wurde vorgelegt. thomas szabo Solche als touristische Souvenirs, Schmuckläden mobilepandora Telefon angebote thomas sabo ohrschmuck Industrie, Bekleidungsindustrie, hochwertigen Schreibwaren-Industrie, auch einige elektronische Geräte. Dies thomas sabo ist eine gute Idee, wenn die Bedingungen, mit kräftigen, schwach ist, oder die schwachen schwachen Spiel wahrscheinlich überraschendste schmuck thomas sabo ketten Ergebnis zu erhalten. Um jedoch die Marktstudie und Machbarkeit, zu stärken und die Aufmerksamkeit Markt, um Tracking-Stamm. Power-and-power Union sollte sicher sein, die pandora deutschland Reize, vor allem die internationale Marke der Zusammenarbeit.