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 Once an illegal warrant has issued, there is no more security (until the point at which the warrant is withdrawn), just as there is no security -- as the Supreme Court has recognized -- when there is no enforcement mechanism available for ensuring that police comply with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.


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.

mhp 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.

Anonymous said...




Anonymous said...


Unknown said...

More for information We know that in the current era you service provider hence each of the Packers and Movers services.
Packers and Movers in Delhi | Movers and Packers Delhi
Packers and Movers in Gurgaon | Movers and Packers Gurgaon
Packers and Movers in Noida | Movers and Packers Noida
Packers and Movers in Ghaziabad | Movers and Packers Ghaziabad
Packers and Movers in Faridabad | Movers and Packers Faridabad

Unknown said...

Thank you very much for this article.

Movers and Packers in Pune
Movers and Packers in Gurgaon
Movers and Packers in Bangalore

Unknown said...

Thank you very much for this article

Packers and Movers Mumbai
Packers and Movers Navi Mumbai
Packers and Movers Thane
Packers and Movers Ghaziabad
Packers and Movers Faridabad
Packers and Movers Delhi
Packers and Movers Noida