The case arose out of an administrative code enforcement search of the defendant's property, which was aided by LA Sheriff's deputies. Here is some of the key language:
Following Alexander v. City & County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355 (9th Cir. 1994) . . . we hold that where, as here, law enforcement officers are asked to assist in the execution of an administrative warrant authorizing the inspection of a private residence, they violate the Fourth Amendment when their "primary purpose" in executing the warrant is to gather evidence in support of a criminal investigation rather than to assist the inspectors.
****
The government argues, in essence, that the presence of LASD’s criminal investigatory motive was harmless because “the sweep of Grey’s dwelling would have occurred regardless of the deputies’ motivation to uncover criminal evidence.” We disagree. Under the Fourth Amendment, reasonableness is determined by assessing the degree to which a search or seizure “intrudes upon an individual’s privacy.” Reasonableness therefore accounts not only for the scope of a search or seizure but also the “manner of [its] execution.”
****
Where, as here, law enforcement officers are called upon to assist in the execution of an administrative warrant providing for the inspection of a private residence, the execution of the warrant is consistent with the Fourth Amendment only so long as the officers’ primary purpose in executing the warrant is to assist in the inspection. If the person challenging the execution of the warrant shows that the officers’ primary purpose was to gather evidence in support of an ongoing criminal investigation, the conduct does not satisfy the Fourth Amendment.
In other news, I know many of us feel that minor role appeals have become hopeless endeavors with inevitable affirms. But I just got a minor role reversal yesterday. Here. Keep hope alive.
