McMorris v. Alioto
| Decision Date | 18 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-2375,75-2375 |
| Parties | S. Carter McMORRIS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joseph L. ALIOTO, Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco, Donald Scott, Chief of Police of the City and County of San Francisco, Washington Garner, Chairman of the Police Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, Marvin Cardoza, Police Commissioner of the City and County of San Francisco, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
S. Carter McMorris, pro se.
Burke E. Delventhal, City Atty. (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before CHOY and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, * District Judge.
The sole issue in this case is whether a limited search conducted as a condition of entering a state courthouse is consistent with the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
S. Carter McMorris, a member of the State Bar of California, brought an action in the federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. McMorris alleged that inspection procedures at the San Francisco Hall of Justice deprived him of his fourth and fourteenth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. McMorris appeals. Because we believe that the search procedures did not infringe McMorris' constitutional rights, we affirm.
The Hall of Justice in San Francisco is a seven-story building. It contains the central offices of the police department of the City and County of San Francisco, including the police administration offices, the bureau of inspectors, the crime laboratory, and the police communications center. Also located in the building are the offices of the county district attorney and the public defender. Finally, the building is the site of the chambers and courtrooms for the criminal divisions of the superior and municipal courts for the County of San Francisco.
In May, 1974, a San Francisco superior court judge ordered that certain search procedures be instituted at the entrance of the Hall of Justice. The inspections were conducted by city employees, under the supervision of a San Francisco police captain. All persons entering the building, other than Hall of Justice employees and peace officers, were required to pass through a magnetometer (metal detector). A visitor who activated the device was free to leave the Hall of Justice without further search and without questioning. We infer from the record that if an individual activated the magnetometer, he could empty his pockets of metals and pass through a second time. If, after this second pass, the individual continued to activate the device, he would not be admitted into the courthouse unless he submitted to a pat-down search. It is explicit in the record that pat-down searches were conducted only if the visitor first gave express consent. Officers would also inspect briefcases and parcels, but were specifically instructed not to examine written material. The officers were further directed to inspect only those briefcases and parcels in which weapons could be concealed.
Those cases that sustained limited searches of persons seeking to enter sensitive facilities recognize an exception to the general requirement of the fourth amendment that searches are proper only if conducted pursuant to a lawful warrant. United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1973); Downing v. Kunzig, 454 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1972). Care must be taken so that the exception is not unduly extended. Decisions of this court, sensitive to such concerns, have given strict scrutiny to any system used to screen persons entering a public place. The search must be clearly necessary to secure a vital governmental interest, such as protecting sensitive facilities from a real danger of violence. United States v. Davis, supra; United States v. Miles, 480 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1973); cf. Collier v. Miller, 414 F.Supp. 1357 (S.D.Tex.1976) (). The search must be limited and no more intrusive than necessary to protect against the danger to be avoided, but nevertheless reasonably effective to discover the materials sought. The inspection must be conducted for a purpose other than the gathering of evidence for criminal prosecutions. To indicate this, we have designated limited searches at sensitive facilities as "administrative searches." United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d at 908. With these general principles in mind, we turn to a discussion of the instant case. 1
The initial inquiry is whether a vital state interest justified the use of some search procedure at the San Francisco Hall of Justice. Both this court and the district court may take judicial notice that threats of violent acts directed at courthouses have given rise to an urgent need for protective measures. See Downing v. Kunzig, 454 F.2d 1230 (6th Cir. 1972), cited with approval in United States v. Miles, 480 F.2d at 1219. In some cases judicially noted facts may be sufficient by themselves to justify a finding that a vital state interest establishes the necessity for a regulatory search. In any event, the need for the search is established in this case both by facts judicially noted and by specific averments in the record.
The record contains references to specific instances of bomb threats and bomb attacks directed at San Francisco police stations, Oakland police stations, and the Los Angeles federal building. The record also refers to a violent incident that occurred at a state courthouse in neighboring Marin County in 1970. During that incident, terrorists kidnapped three jurors and a state prosecutor and killed a superior court judge. These facts lend substantial support to the conclusion that the threat of violence at the San Francisco Hall of Justice at the time the complaint was filed justified a limited search procedure. 2
Our finding that a serious threat of violence existed at the Hall of Justice is also supported by affidavits filed with the district court by the superior court judge who ordered that the search procedures be established. In those affidavits, the judge recited the facts on which he relied in issuing his order. His first affidavit stated that before the search procedures were used, persons attempting to enter the spectators' section of his courtroom had been found with weapons and conforming ammunition on their persons. In a supplemental affidavit, the judge advised the district court of a particular bomb threat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Martell
... ... Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 529, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1731, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967)); McMorris v. Alioto, 567 F.2d 897, 899 (9th Cir. 1978) ("Those cases that sustained limited searches of persons seeking to enter sensitive facilities recognize ... ...
-
Clifford v. Harrison Cnty.
... ... Kunzig , 454 F.2d 1230, 1232-33 (6th Cir. 1972) (holding that entrance to a government building predicated on search was constitutional); McMorris v. Alioto , 567 F.2d 897, 900-01 (9th Cir. 1978) (extending search validity to state courts on basis of serious threats of violence). In McMorris ... ...
-
Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Burnley
... ... ) (upheld pat-down search of person at border based only on minimal showing of suspicion), partially vacated, 772 F.2d 578 (9th Cir.1985); McMorris v. Alioto, 567 F.2d 897 (9th Cir.1978) (approved routine metal detector and pat-down searches of attorneys entering courthouse); Davis, 482 F.2d at ... ...
-
State v. Griffith, 35848-8-III
... ... E.g. , United States v. Bulacan , 156 F.3d 963, 967-68 (9th Cir. 1998) (federal building); McMorris v. Alioto , 567 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1978) (state courthouse); United States v. $124,570 U.S. Currency , 873 F.2d 1240, 1244 (9th Cir. 1989) ... ...