Judge finds warrant to search everyone at Bullskin church was invalid
A federal judge found that a warrant to search all people who were present during a 2009 raid at the Church of Universal Love and Music in Bullskin Township was invalid.
U.S. District Court Judge Donetta W. Ambrose ruled that the warrant for the church “was not supported by probable cause and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.”
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure.
The church, which bases its worship on music, was subject to a raid by the Fayette County Drug Task Force and other law enforcement. The warrant officers had allowed them to search any of the estimated 1,000 people on the church’s 148 acres of land.
The raid resulted in several drug-related arrests, and the church was precluded from holding any more concerts.
Its founder, William “Willie” Pritts, and several others who were present during the raid, sued the county, task force officer Autumn Fike and Ryan Reese and Assistant District Attorney Mark D. Brooks in federal court.
Ambrose cited case law that indicates an “all-persons” warrant is authorized if the affidavit asking for it shows probable cause that every person there is likely to be involved in criminal activity, or that the premises to be searched are dedicated to criminal activity.
“We are delighted by the decision and feel strongly that Judge Ambrose made the correct decision in holding the warrant invalid,” church attorney Greg Koerner said Friday. “As we have from the outset of this case, we look forward to working with Fayette County to resolve plaintiffs’ claims. The county’s illegal raid has destroyed the church, and the longer this case drags on, the more expensive it becomes,” he added.
The affidavit in the case “did not set forth reasonable grounds to believe that all persons on the premises at the time were engaged in criminal activity or that the premises were dedicated to criminal activity,” Ambrose wrote.
Ambrose noted that the warrant itself refers to concerts held on the grounds, that the crowd at a prior event “was not large enough to hide illegal acts” and that a food vendor told undercover police that there wasn’t enough of a crowd to sell “pot brownies.”
Those references, Ambrose wrote, “belie reasonable grounds to conclude that all persons present would be engaged in illegal activity at the time of a search, or that the premises were dedicated to criminal activity.”
Though the affidavit for the warrant noted that police saw “widespread” drug use when they were there undercover, Ambrose found that is not enough to get a warrant that lets police search everyone on the grounds.
“The affidavit does not state, nor do the facts recitated therein reasonably lead to the conclusion, that evidence of illegal activity would be found upon every person at the ‘Funk Fest’ or even every person in the vending, stage or camping area of the CULM property,” Ambrose wrote. “The facts stated in the affidavit simply could not lead one to analogize the subject premises during music concerts to locations such as an apartment used as a crack house or a barn used as a methamphetamine lab.”
The opinion noted that county attorney Marie M. Jones argued that Ambrose was bound by the determinations of Fayette County judges to hold the warrant is valid. Several of those arrested unsuccessfully challenged the warrant in criminal court in a bid to get the charges dropped.
“There is no indication that the suppression decision were based on anything other than state law — the Court of Common Pleas’ opinions reference neither federal case law nor the United States Constitution. Presently, the parties remain silent regarding the relationship between state and federal constitutional requirements, and thus so shall I,” Ambrose wrote. “In sum, viewed as a whole, the affidavit did not provide a substantial basis for the issuing judge’s finding of probably cause, solely to the extent that it authorized the search of all persons present on the identified premises,” she wrote.
District Attorney Jack R. Heneks Jr. said that he did not believe Ambrose’s ruling would have an impact on the nearly two dozen drug-related prosecutions that resulted from the raid.
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re done. No one appealed to the Superior Court, and I have not had anything to do with that case from a DA standpoint,” Heneks said.
While she granted summary judgment about the warrant, Ambrose indicated she could not find that the plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment on liability. Granting summary judgment about the warrant essentially means that Ambrose has found as fact, and it would be presented to a jury as fact, that the warrant was invalid.
Part of the suit alleged that the county officials organized the raid in retaliation for a prior lawsuit brought by the church in federal court over zoning. Jones argued to dismiss that, but Ambrose found that there was enough evidence to allow a jury to decide that matter.
Ambrose also ruled that Fike was not liable for any alleged use of excessive force toward a security officer at the church who alleged she roughly handled his insulin pump during the raid.
Ambrose found that the facts and circumstances show that Fike “did not use an objectively unreasonable amount of force.”
“From the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, it was reasonable to handle — even if more roughly than proved necessary — an unidentified pouch on the person of a detained individual known to have been armed,” Ambrose wrote.
Additionally, she found that Fike and Reese are entitled to qualified immunity from suit on any claims that stem from their execution of the warrant she deemed invalid.
Because a judge issued the warrant, and it would not have been clear to the police that it was an unlawful search, Ambrose found they should be immune from suit related to that.
The jurist rejected a request to dismiss Brooks as a defendant.
When a prosecutor assists, directs or participates in getting evidence before charges are filed, he or she is not entitled to immunity, Ambrose found. Brooks, who supervises the task force, went with officers for the initial undercover visits.
“Carefully considering all of the facts at hand, I conclude that defendant Brooks was not acting within the scope of his prosecutorial duties when he participated in the investigation, preparation and execution of the search warrant,” Ambrose wrote.
She also threw out a claim that police were not properly trained.