Timothy T. Coates

See Correction Below

In the past three years, Coates has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court - an unusually high number for any attorney, especially one based outside of Washington, D.C.

On the day of oral arguments he is calm, he said. He actually enjoys himself. The hard part comes the weeks before, during the long hours of preparation.

In December, Coates successfully argued before the high court that it should shield Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers from personal liability for using a search warrant that was far too broad to be constitutional.

The issue arose out of an early morning SWAT team raid in 2003 of the home of an elderly woman living in South Central Los Angeles. Armed with a search warrant, the Los Angeles sheriff's deputies were looking for the woman's former foster child, a known gang member. During the raid the deputies seized the elderly woman's shotgun. After the woman sued, a federal district judge denied the deputies legal immunity, ruling they should have known the warrant was clearly too broad.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, but Coates successfully defended the deputies before the U.S. Supreme Court. Messerschmidt v. Millender, 10-704. The Supreme Court's decision provides "stronger protections for police officers in securing warrants," Coates said. "Liability should be the exception and not the rule."

Coates is already gearing up to try another case in front of the court. He is representing Los Angeles County in its attempt to avoid liability for polluted stormwater discharged into a pair of local rivers.

The 9th Circuit found the county in violation of the Clean Water Act and said it was liable. The county argues the liability should rest with the counties and cities that polluted the water before it reached Los Angeles. Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 11-460.

Getting the Supreme Court to review the case involved high-stakes lobbying. After the justices asked the solicitor general to weigh in on whether the matter was worth their time, Coates became involved in an intense, behind-closed-doors effort to win the government's support. While the solicitor general ultimately opposed the request, the high court still decided to take the case, in part, Coates believes, because of the interest it generated from around the country.

"I have [garnered] much more amicus interest in this case than any other case my office has had in the Supreme Court," Coates said.

He said the issue is critically important for local governments to know what their liability might be under the Clean Water Act.

"You want to fix responsibility where there is responsibility," he said.

- EMILY GREEN

Correction: The original version of this article incorrectly stated the number of cases Coates has recently argued before the Supreme Court. Also, the original article failed to clarify that the solicitor general's office ultimately opposed the request for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The Daily Journal regrets the errors.