Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Manassas Park’s Case Cut Off At The Legs

By Greg L | 12 May 2009 | Rack & Roll Scandal | 8 Comments

Well, lookie here City of Manassas Park: one of your major arguments against David Ruttenberg in the Rack n’ Roll scandal just got thrown out by the Fifth Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit agrees!  I guess you better come up with a better rationale for having more than fifty police officers in SWAT gear raid a business under the guise of an administrative inspection for compliance with an ABC permit!

The Agitator is all over this:

The case stems from what was clearly a drug raid conducted on a bar in Louisiana by the Rapides Parrish Sheriff’s Department. But the raid was conducted under the auspices of an alcohol inspection, which allowed the department to get around the need for a criminal search warrant.

The Fifth Circuit ruled such a raid violates the Fourth Amendment, and is allowing a civil rights suit against the officers involved to go forward. From the opinion:

Taking plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, defendants did not enter Club Retro as would a typical patron; instead, they chose to project official authority by entering with weapons drawn in a S.W.A.T. team raid. They lacked any particularized suspicion or probable cause when they subsequently searched Club Retro, its attic, and the separate apartment and seized and searched all of its patrons and employees. Thus, defendants’ entry and search was not a reasonable acceptance of Club Retro’s invitation to the public. Any other conclusion would be an invitation for S.W.A.T. team raids by law enforcement officers of any business that is open to the public and would severely undermine the Fourth Amendment protections afforded to owners of commercial premises.

We are likewise not convinced by defendants’ second argument that they conducted a permissible administrative inspection. Although Louisiana statutes and Rapides Parish ordinances authorizing administrative inspections may have provided justification for an entry and inspection of Club Retro, no such law permits the scope and manner of the raid that plaintiffs allege occurred here…

Administrative inspections, by their very nature, require more limited, less intrusive conduct than is alleged to have occurred here. We thus conclude that defendants’ S.W.A.T. team entries and extensive searches, as described in the amended complaint, unreasonably exceeded the scope of Louisiana and Rapides Parish administrative inspection laws. Any other conclusion would allow the administrative inspection exception to swallow the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for searches of private property.

The court also cited a similar opinion from the 11th Circuit:

In Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995), the Eleventh Circuit relied on existing Supreme Court precedent to reject qualified immunity as a defense for officers who conducted two raids of a nightclub that were comparable in relevant respects to the raid here. There, a S.W.A.T. team of thirty to forty officers, wearing ski masks, swarmed a club after receiving a signal from an undercover officer who had probable cause to arrest one patron for an illegal drug transaction. Id. at 993. The officers pointed their weapons at many of the club’s patrons and employees; prohibited the owners, employees, and patrons from moving or leaving; searched all individuals; refused patrons’ and employees’ requests to use the restrooms; searched the club, its cash registers, and door receipts; and maintained control of the premises and persons for between one and one and one-half hours. Id. The court concluded that the officers could point to “no authority that even suggests that the search and seizure of one suspect in a public place can be bootstrapped into probable cause for a broad-based search of the business establishment and its patrons.”

For a few years now, I’ve been covering the ongoing saga of David Ruttenberg, a former pool hall owner in Virginia whose business was raided by a massive police force in 2004. The mix of SWAT, undercover, and uniformed officers stormed Ruttenberg’s bar on ladies’ night. Like the cases above, the search on Ruttenberg’s bar was also clearly a criminal search disguised as an alcohol inspection, though in Ruttenberg’s case, it was really only one of numerous violations of his civil rights by the police and political establishment in Manassas Park, Virginia. The police had tried to obtain a search warrant against Ruttenberg for the 2004 raid, but couldn’t convince a judge they had probable cause he’d committed a crime. So the merely brought along some representatives from the Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control, and called it an inspection.
The one material difference between the Club Retro case and Rack n’ Roll was that Manassas Park also had an arrest warrant for a Mr. Jeffrey Price as a rationale for conducting this raid.  That’s going to be awfully thin as a defense, given that Manassas Park released documents showing that Price was a confidential informant working for the Manassas Park Police at the time.  Had the raid been conducted for the purpose of apprehending someone who was already working for the police, and who would be quietly released without charges afterwards, the raid would have been clearly a violation of Mr. Ruttenberg’s Fourth Amendment Rights.  That makes Manassas Park’s position in the inevitable appeal on his case rather tenuous at best.

Let’s hope Dave finally gets some justice in this case.  It’s long, long overdue.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. anon said on 13 May 2009 at 5:17 am:
    Flag comment

    50 cops responding to one guy’s arrest warrant? Right. And does Manassas Park have that many on their force? If stateys were involved how many dangerous I-66 HOV violators were getting off that day?

    At least those cops got a day off from having to stand in the left lane blocking commuter traffic.

    Yeah, it’s off-topic but it’s pissing me off to read about cop abuses when I have to average 20mph on an interstate every day from 495 to almost 50 and over half the time the congestion is being caused by the damned cops.

  2. BattleCat said on 13 May 2009 at 7:01 pm:
    Flag comment


    I’m with you….to a point. I know the cops slow down 66, but I also think singles in the HOV lane should be fined 5000 bucks, no appeals, no questions asked. I can’t STAND people who pull that mess.

  3. anon said on 13 May 2009 at 7:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    That’s right Battlecat. What makes those folks think they are so special that the can ride in the HOV lane. If it was a big fine, they’d stop doing it.

  4. Loudoun Insider said on 13 May 2009 at 8:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    To the point of the post - go Ruttenberg! He was totally shafted. These opinions look to be very favorable to his case.

  5. Frank said on 14 May 2009 at 3:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think simple speeders should be fined 7000 bucks. The are much worse than the illegal HOVers? A speeder once killed a child. An failure to use a turn signal should be a fine of 6500 bucks. One of those once killed a child as well.

  6. Brian Leeper said on 14 May 2009 at 5:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    “An failure to use a turn signal should be a fine of 6500 bucks”

    It could be a fine of $2500, it’s reckless driving.

  7. jacob said on 26 May 2009 at 12:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    7000 for speeding? Get a grip. On that scale does one get jail time for running a red light? Let’s see, along the no appeal no questions asked theme — do we just shoot those who are DWI? Or hang them, shooting is sooo messy.

  8. swine said on 5 Jun 2009 at 8:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    yea, that guy is a tool. you do need to get a grip. at that rate, my grandma will be tackled and billyclubed by mp’s finest just for letting her tag go one day after it expires. NO EXCEPTIONS..lol even know she has serious arthritus, and osteoperosis and can hardly move. but im sure that the boys in blue(who wish they were military) would tackle her ass like sean taylor slammin terrel owens.

Comments are closed.

Views: 3057