Monroe v. Pape

Petitioners
Monroe, et al.
Respondents
Pape, et al.
Petitioners' Claim
That a warrantless search of their home by police, which included demeaning treatment of the entire family, gave the Monroe family cause to bring suit forcivil damages against the city of Chicago and the police officers involved in the search.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioners
Donald Page Moore
Chief Lawyer for Respondents
Sydney R. Drebin
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, William O. Douglas (writing for the Court), Felix Frankfurter, Potter Stewart, Earl Warren, Charles Evans Whittaker
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
20 February 1961
Decision
Upheld the petitioners' claim and overturned two lower court rulings dismissing their right to pursue civil damages against police authorities, while affirming the lower courts' dismissal of petitioners' claims against the city ofChicago.
Significance
The ruling revitalized R.S. 1979 of the U.S. Code, derived from article 1 ofthe so-called Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which was passed to protect individuals against abuse of their human rights by state authorities. By affirming theability of citizens to bring civil suit for damages against authorities whoviolate their constitutional rights, the Court struck a blow for the rights of the individual and curtailed certain capricious police activities. However,by also affirming the immunity of municipalities from civil suit by their citizens, the Court established a legal precedent that was not displaced untilMonell v. Department of Social Services, (1977).
A Turbulent Time
In the years immediately following the Civil War, the southern United Statessuffered great social and political upheaval. Many white citizens resented the political power wielded by newly freed slaves, and took action to curb their participation in the electoral process through terror and other means. As attacks against African Americans continued into the 1870s, many of which wereconducted with the approval and even the participation of local law enforcement authorities, President Ulysses S. Grant asked for congressional action toaddress the problem.
The Ku Klux Klan Act was passed in 1871 in response to Grant's appeal. When added to the U.S. Code as R.S. 1979, it provided in Section 1 that

every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen ofthe United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitutionand laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit inequity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

This language allowed individuals whose rights had been violated by authorities to seek redress in civil court, in addition to their constitutional protection from the use of evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures. The act also provided jurisdiction for the federal judiciary in cases involving abridgment of an individual's constitutional rights being tried in state courts.
An Energetic Mistake
While investigating a murder, the Chicago police conducted a warrantless search of the Monroe home. Their search techniques were unorthodox. Thirteen police officers broke into the Monroe house in the early morning hours, made every family member get out of bed and stand naked in the center of the living room, and ransacked the house looking for evidence of Mr. Monroe's involvementin the murder. The search included such actions as emptying drawers onto thefloor and the ripping open of mattresses. Mr. Monroe was then taken to the police station and detained for ten hours without specific charges being brought against him. He was not brought before a magistrate at the onset of his ordeal, as was legally required, despite the fact that one was available at thestation where he was detained. He was also not allowed to contact his attorney during his detention. Despite all this activity, the police were unable touncover any evidence linking Mr. Monroe to the murder they were investigating, and were forced to release him without bringing any criminal charges against him.
The Monroe family was unwilling to let matters rest at this stage. They decided to pursue civil suits against the city of Chicago and the police officersunder R.S. 1979. The city of Chicago and the individual defendants moved forand received a dismissal of the Monroes' claims in the district court. The case then proceeded to the court of appeals, which upheld the ruling of the district court. The U.S. Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case on a writ ofcertiorari, as the lower court rulings were seen as contradictory toearlier Supreme Court decisions in similar cases. The Court heard arguments in the matter on 8 November 1961.
Equal Protection and the States
The Court ruled unanimously in favor of the petitioners, deciding that they had legal grounds to pursue redress through civil litigation against the police officers responsible for their ordeal. The ruling did not extend to the city of Chicago, however, as the Court interpreted R.S. 1979's second clause asexempting municipalities from liability for the actions of their officers. Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, observed that federal jurisdiction certainly was present in the case, since Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures are made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, although R.S.1979 was originally created to protect African Americans from the Ku Klux Klan, it was also designed to ensure that the states enforced their own laws equally with regard to all their citizens. In the present case, the actions of police officers were judged to be so egregious that the exclusion of evidenceobtained through their searches (of which there was none in any case) could not possibly recompense the Monroe family for its trouble. Finally, since thestate courts were unable to provide any compensatory action to the Monroe family, a federal remedy had to be forthcoming.
Significantly, despite the appearance of a clear victory for the petitioners,the Court's refusal to allow the city of Chicago to be sued would continue to pose a legal barrier to individuals seeking redress for misdeeds of municipalities that could not be compensated for through mere exclusion of evidence.
Impact
The ruling affirmed the right of citizens to seek compensation beyond exclusion of evidence for actions taken "under color of law" by state officials. Monroe v. Pape also confirmed the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in cases where state courts failed to provide sufficient recompense to victimsof civil rights infringements by state authorities. By stopping short of making municipalities liable for the actions of their officers, however, the Court failed to fully protect the rights of the individual. This was remedied inMonell v. Department of Social Services (1978), in which the Court went beyond Monroe to rule that individuals whose civil rights had beenviolated could seek redress from municipalities as well as from their officers.
Related Cases

• United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941).
  
• Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945).
  
• Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97 (1951).
  
• Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).