When the deputies ordered respondents from their bed, they had no way of knowing whether the African-American suspects were elsewhere in the house. The presence of some Caucasians in the residence did not eliminate the possibility that the suspects lived there as well. As the deputies stated in their affidavits, it is not uncommon in our society for people of different races to live together. Just as people of different races live and work together, so too might they engage in joint criminal activity. The deputies, who were searching a house where they believed a suspect might be armed, possessed authority to secure the premises before deciding whether to continue with the search. . . . .

In executing a search warrant officers may take reasonable action to secure the premises and to ensure their own safety and the efficacy of the search. The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is an objective one. Unreasonable actions include the use of excessive force or restraints that cause unnecessary pain or are imposed for a prolonged and unnecessary period of time.

The orders by the police to the occupants, in the context of this lawful search, were permissible, and perhaps necessary, to protect the safety of the deputies. Blankets and bedding can conceal a weapon, and one of the suspects was known to own a firearm, factors which underscore this point. The Constitution does not require an officer to ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may sleep with a weapon within reach. . . . .

The Fourth Amendment allows warrants to issue on probable cause, a standard well short of absolute certainty. Valid warrants will issue to search the innocent, and people like Rettele and Sadler unfortunately bear the cost. Officers executing search warrants on occasion enter a house when residents are engaged in private activity; and the resulting frustration, embarrassment, and humiliation may be real, as was true here. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, however, the Fourth Amendment is not violated.

Today, in a 7-2 opinion, in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Supreme Court ruled that the mere assertion in a complaint of an underlying agreement violating Section 1 of the Sherman act was insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss when the parallel behavior in question could just as easily be explained as independent behavior. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Souter, emphasizes the high costs associated with antitrust discovery. In reaching its conclusion, the Court “retires”—as it puts it—its 1957 decision in Conley v. Gibson in which the Court spoke of “the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”

The ruling handed a victory to Sandee and Jeff Winkelman of Cleveland, who said they couldn't afford a lawyer to pursue their case against the Parma City School District once it reached federal court.

"I'm very overwhelmed. I'm very grateful," Sandee Winkelman told The Chronicle after learning of the court's 7-2 decision in her favor. "All parents now have the ability to do something if they can't afford an attorney.

The Council of the Great City Schools, a coalition of the nation's largest urban school systems, joined the case in opposition and said the ruling will lead to more lawsuits over special education programs and result in higher legal costs for public schools.

Although parents have long been permitted to represent themselves in state cases against schools, most courts have said parents need a lawyer in federal court.

The Winkelmans' story, which changed that rule, is like thousands across California and the nation in which parents opt for private over public education for their disabled children. Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, the parents are often able to have taxpayers pay the tuition.

Sometimes that's because the local public school has no appropriate program to address the child's particular educational needs, and both sides agree that private school is required. But in a growing number of cases, parents don't like the program offered by the public schools and sue for private tuition and services.