“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case
Philadelphia residents sued police for bursting into and searching their home without probable cause.
What happened in this case?
Just before 6 am, police officers in Philadelphia broke down the front door of a house looking for a shooting suspect who they thought lived there and on whom they had obtained a warrant. The suspect was not there and they aroused Richard Miller and Tonya Crawley and began to question them and to search the house. They refused to let Miller use the cane that he needed to walk and harshly asked them about the suspect, who had in fact moved out of the house and was later cleared by the police of any wrongdoing.
Miller and Crawley later sued the police and the city for violating their constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the police claiming they had probable cause. The case was appealed to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the ruling in a 2-1 decision by Trump judge Stephanos Bibas, joined by Reagan nominee Anthony Scirica, in Miller v City of Philadelphia.
What did Trump judge Bibas and Reagan judge Scirica decide?
Judges Bibas and Scirica affirmed summary judgment in favor of the police because they had a warrant for the suspect and believed he was in the house they broke into, even though he was not. The police good faith belief was sufficient for the majority.
What did Judge Smith say in dissent?
Judge D. Brooks Smith, who was nominated by George W Bush, dissented. He explained that probable cause to believe someone “had resided” in a dwelling plus a “mere generalization about what time of day people are usually at home”, as in this case, is not sufficient to support probable cause according to past precedent.
Why is the result harmful?
Trump judge Bibas’ deciding vote and opinion obviously harm the efforts of Richard Miller and Tonya Harding to get justice for the conduct of the police in this case. It also sets a bad precedent throughout the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, concerning police misconduct. The decision also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.