written by Fred Haiman, Program Adminstrator for TCLEOSE. They do not constitute legal advice.

 Full Text information is available at

In June 1994, Edwin Heitschmidt (a U.S. Customs Officer) was living in Houston with Ann Menke Fucaluro, the leader of a sizable ring of innovative prostitutes known as the "Salad Sisters". After Fucaluro was arrested as part of a sting operation, a warrant was issued to search the house that Heitschmidt shared with Fucaluro. Although officers knew Heitschmidt shared this house with Fucaluro, he was not a target of the investigation, and police had no reason to suspect Heitschmidt of any wrongdoing prior to searching the home.

Officers arrived to serve the warrant around 9 p.m. on the evening of June 9, 1994. Two policemen lured Heitschmidt from the residence by claiming they needed his help identifying people who had allegedly been picked up in the neighborhood. Heitschmidt agreed to help, and voluntarily went outside. When he got to the patrol car, the officers pushed him onto the trunk of the police car and handcuffed him tightly enough to cause him severe pain.

Several unmarked cars (10 - 12 additional officers) then pulled up and they preceded to search the house. They took Heitschmidt back into the house, showed him a copy of the warrant, and sat him on a barstool. Heitschmidt asked if he was under arrest and the officers say that he was not, he was merely being detained.

Heitschmidt remained handcuffed and seated from 9:15 p.m. until 1:45 a.m. (4 ½ hours). Although he complained that the cuffs were too tight and requested permission to use the bathroom, he was denied everything.

During the search, the police seized a number of items thought to be related to the prostitution ring.

Heitschmidt claims that he suffered permanent serious injury to his wrists and psychological harm, as a result of the incident. On review to the 5^th Circuit, Heitschmidt was claiming his 4^th Amendment rights (unreasonable search & seizure) were violated by the 6 named officers.

The district court in Houston stated that Heitschmidt could not sue the police officers because they were entitled to qualified immunity.

The District Court in Houston stated that Heitschmidt was not entitled to sue the Houston police officers because he did not state an adequate claim against them and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

To determine whether the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to the individual officers was proper, the 5^th circuit had to decide if Heitschmidt’s pleadings (1) conceivably stated violations of clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) allege conduct that is objectionably unreasonable. Heitschmidt’s 4^th Amendment claims alleged (1) that he was unlawfully and unreasonably detained, and (2) that he was subjected to excessive force.

The Court reasoned that the police do have limited authority to detain the occupant of a house without probable cause while the premises is searched, when the detention is neither prolonged nor unduly intrusive, and when the police are executing a valid search warrant for contraband. In this case however, the intrusion was far more severe. There was only minimal indication that Heitschmidt’s restraint was required to protect the police and there was no indication that the police had reason to believe that Heitschmidt was involved in the prostitution ring or any other crime at the time the home was searched. Once the premises was secure and police were proceeding with their work without interference, there was no justification for prolonging the physical intrusive aspect of Heitschmidt’s detention.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the officers are NOT entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Heitschmidt’s unreasonable detention claim, and the district court’s dismissal of the claim is reversed. The Court also concluded that Heitschmidt has at least conceivably stated a violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, and therefore, the district court’s dismissal of his excessive force claim on the basis of qualified immunity is reversed.

Actual result of this ruling: Heitschmidt gets to go back to District Court and attempt to prove up his case against the officers.

Minnesota v. Carter (97-1147) {decided December 1, 1998 - 6 to 3 decision}

A police officer looked in an apartment window through a gap in the closed blind and observed the defendant and the apartment’s lessee bagging cocaine. The Defendant in this case did not live in this apartment, but was merely a "business" visitor. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence , arguing that the officer’s initial observation was an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place, and that the officer’s observation constituted an unreasonable search.

The U.S. Supreme Court overruled, stating that any search that may have occurred did not violate the defendants Fourth Amendment rights. The Court reasoned that, although you have an expectation of privacy in your own home, and even have this expectation if you are a guest in another’s home, you don’t have any expectation of privacy if you are there for "purely commercial" reasons (i.e., buying and selling cocaine) .

The Court did not even look into whether or not this "peeking" into a closed window constituted a "search" . They simply said that the defendant did not have an "expectation of privacy", therefore we don’t care if this would constitute a "search" or not.

Knowles v. Iowa (97-7597) {decided December 8, 1998 - unanimous opinion}

An Iowa policeman stopped the defendant for speeding and issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The officer then conducted a full search of the car, without either the defendant’s consent or probable cause. The officer found marijuana and a "pot pipe" and arrested the defendant. The Iowa Supreme court found in favor of the officer, applying the "search incident to citation" exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, reasoning that so long as the officer had probable cause to make a custodial arrest, there need not in fact have been an arrest.

The U.S. Supreme Court overruled, stating that this search did violate the Fourth Amendment. The historical exception to the Fourth Amendment is a "search incident to arrest", which this was not. There was no threat to the officer’s safety during this routine traffic stop, and the need to discover and preserve evidence does not exist in a traffic stop. They reasoned that once the defendant was stopped for speeding and issued a citation, all evidence necessary to prosecute that offense had been obtained.

In other words - the police can not side-step the "probable cause" requirement just because they stop someone for a traffic offense. They still have to be able to justify the reason for the vehicle search (i.e., actions of the driver, smell of marijuana, etc…)