http://blogs.enotes.com/…

Moore v. Andreno, 06-3623 (2nd Cir., Oct. 22, 2007)

While [the defendants] misapplied the relevant constitutional calculus, they are police officers, not lawyers or mathematicians.

That’s the logic behind this Fourth Amendment decision, in which the Second Circuit determines that officers who responded to a call from a woman who had broken into her ex’s locked study are entitled to qualified immunity for searching the study and finding drugs. According to the Court, although the police made a constitutional error, they did a reasonable job of resolving a difficult tension between the right to privacy in one’s home and the rights of victims of domestic violence.

The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, but the Second Circuit reverses. Applying a test set forth in a 1992 decision from the Second Circuit, the Court concludes that the officers violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by assuming that Sines had authority to consent to their entry into the study. However, the Court further holds that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

I think Mike said it all: “Aren’t they charged with enforcing the law? Doesn’t the law include the Constitution? What excuse do they have for not knowing basic laws? They sure knew what law to charge the boyfriend under, didn’t they? Why is “ignorance of the law no excuse” when private people are charged with crimes? The criminal code is complex, and it’s understandable that lay people might not understand when his conduct is criminal. Shouldn’t lay persons be given the benefit of the doubt in such cases? Why not?”

Just another example of those in power protecting their own. How can you have any trust in those who are supposed to enforce the law if they don’t even know the most basic of them?