4A 4C 2006: Mistaken Dorm Room Raid Is Not Unreasonable

MAZUZ v. MARYLAND, 442 F.3d 217 (4th Cir. 2006), No. 05-1463, 2006 U.S.App. LEXIS 7660, on appeal from USDC-MDD, before USCJs Widener, Shedd, USDJ-VAED Kelley by designation, opinion by Shedd, concurrence by Kelley, filed 29 Mar 2006.

LONG STORY SHORT: Police took reasonable measures to ensure that they searched the correct dorm room, and students in the room that police mistakenly raided were not subject to an unreasonable search or seizure. Binding in MD, NC, SC, VA, WV.

FACTS: Detective Tou of the University of Maryland PD was investigating illegal drug sales on campus, including an armed robbery in dorm Ellicott Hall room 5107. The investigation revealed that one of the students involved in illegal drug sales had a knife and would use it on police if necessary. Detective Tou, who had obtained and served over 100 search warrants while with UMPD, personally visited the dorm and looked at the exterior of the rooms, then obtained search warrants for rooms 5105 and 5110, and arrest warrants for the residents of rooms 5105 and 5107. Detective Tou and his warrant team approached the rooms at 10:30pm, in hopes of better results at night instead of day. Detective Tou did not have copies of the warrants, which particularly described the rooms' exteriors, with him, even though doing so would have reduced the possibility of mistakes.

Detective Tou was to enter room 5110, but because the room numbers were beside the doors instead of on them and he was staying close to the wall, he mistook room 5108 for 5110. Plaintiff heard the knock and announce, but did not know it was a police officer until he opened the door to see Detective Tou, in tactical blacks and balaclava, pointing a firearm at him. Officers entered the room and ordered Plaintiff and his roommate to the floor and handcuffed them. Detective Tou soon determined that something was amiss, and rechecked the room number. Upon noticing his mistake, he uncuffed Plaintiff and his roommate, apologized, and led his team to search room 5110. The whole incident occupied 1 to 2 minutes. Plaintiff failed a test the next day and suffered from PTSD long after.

PROCEDURE: Plaintiff sued Maryland and Detective Tou in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland per 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Detective Tou moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, arguing that his entry into Plaintiff's room was reasonable under the circumstances. The trial court ruled that although a close case, Detective Tou had been to the rooms' area before and should have known better, and a jury would have to decide. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DENIED. Detective Tou appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

DECISION: § 1983 exists to deter state officials from violating constitutional rights; failing that, it provides relief for victims of deliberate violations, but not if any violations were the products of reasonable mistake. Without question, Detective Tou's actions amounted to a warrantless search of Plaintiff's home, which is normally an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Fourth Circuit ruled, on these specific facts, Detective Tou's mistakes were reasonable as a matter of law. He visited the rooms beforehand, which showed due diligence, but the trial court's ruling implicity penalized him for that, since if he had never visited them, a claim of mistake would have been even more plausible. Though carrying copies of the warrants with him might have been preferable, no court has ever required that, and the Fourth Circuit would not hold Detective Tou to what was not required. Once in the room, Detective Tou was entitled to take reasonable protective measures, such as display of weapons and handcuffing occupants, which he discontinued as soon as he realized his error. Plaintiff suffered neither unreasonable search nor excessive force. DENIAL OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY REVERSED; cause remanded for further consistent proceedings.

The concurrence agreed with the result and the reasoning, but wrote separately to emphasize that the trial court incorrectly intended to submit qualified immunity to the jury, when in fact qualified immunity is supposed to immunize defendants from trial as well as liability.

EDITORIAL: What a wuss--PTSD from once being incorrectly searched for a minute? Oh please. Get a grip! Get a life! Well, what do you expect when college kids have been told for the last 40 years that the only thing in the entire universe that matters is YOUR PERSONAL RIGHTS and the police stay up nights thinking of new ways to violate them. It was a mistake--get over it. If you have to sue SOMEbody, go sue the morons who put the room numbers on the wall and not on the doors.

Hope the rest of the op turned out all right. Even in the academic ivory tower, drug deals and other bad things need police attention before they turn violent.