By Larry Jones
March 28, 2005

The Supreme Court last week handed down decisions in two cases affecting cities: City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams and Muehler et al. v. Mena. In the first case the Court addressed the question of whether or not an individual, who the city denied permission to build a radio tower, can seek injunctive relief for alleged violations of Section 332,c,7 of the Telecommunications Act (which limits state and local zoning authority) and at the same time seek money damages and attorney's fees for such violations under Section 1983. In a unanimous decision on March 22 the Supreme Court ruled that an individual may not. Writing on behalf of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote "The critical question, then is whether Congress meant the judicial remedy expressly authorized by Section 332, c, 7 to coexist with an alternative remedy available in a Section 1983 action. We conclude not."

In the second case, officers of the Semi Valley, California, police department were sued by Iris Mena who claimed that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when she was detained in handcuffs the duration of a search of the premises that she and others occupied. She also claimed that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when she was asked about her immigration status during the detention. Officer Muehler and other members of a police SWAT team had obtained a search warrant to search the premises for deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership following a drive-by shooting.

The questions before the courts were whether law enforcement officers violated Mena's Fourth Amendment rights by handcuffing her for the duration of the search and inquiring about her immigration status. The District Court ruled in favor of Mena and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Supreme Court on March 22 reversed the court of appeals decision, ruling that neither Mena's detention in handcuffs nor the questioning about her immigration status violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures. In explaining this ruling the Court said "The use of force in the form of handcuffs to detain Mena was reasonable because the governmental interest in minimizing the risk of harm to both officers and occupants, at its maximum when a warrant authorizes a search for weapons and a wanted gang member resides on the premises, outweighs the marginal intrusion." As for the questioning of Mena, the Court held that "mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure" under the Fourth Amendment."

As for the questioning of Mena, the Court held that "mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure" under the Fourth Amendment."