AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Search and Seizure: Search Warrants
Monthly Law
Journal Article: Civil Liability for Exceeding
the Scope of a Search Warrant, 2010 (1) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Civil Liability and
Affidavits for Search Warrants -- Part One, 2010 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly
Law Journal Article: Civil Liability and
Affidavits for Search Warrants -- Part Two, 2010 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: GPS
Devices and the Fourth Amendment, 2010 (12) AELE Mo. L. J. 101
Monthly Law Journal Article: Home
Searches and the Community Caretaking Doctrine, 2011 (1) AELE Mo. L.
J. 101
Monthly Law Journal Article: No-Knock Home Searches, 2011 (3) AELE Mo. L.
J. 101
Monthly Law Journal Article: No Warrant Needed to Search a
Cell Phone Found on an Arrestee, 2011 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 401.
A federal appeals court ruled that a reasonable officer could think that a warrant to search a vehicle included an implicit authorization to seize the keys to the vehicle. A second warrant in the case authorizin the seizure of any and all handguns in the plaintiff’s home, and the seizure of antique handguns, guns in unopened boxes and holsters was permitted because they were reasonably related to the suspected crime at issue – the discharge of a firearm at a visitor to the defendant's home so that the warrant was sufficiently particular. A defendant sheriff played no part in obtaining or executing the warrant and the plaintiff failed to allege that he failed to train or supervise his deputies and, as a result, he was entitled to summary judgment on the claims against him in his individual capacity. The plaintiff also failed to allege an actionable municipal custom, and the court therefore did not err in granting the sheriff summary judgment on the plaintiff’s official capacity claim. Finally, the plaintiff had an adequate state court remedy to obtain the return of the seized items, and his due-process claim over the retention of his property was rejected. Thiel v. Korte, #19-1860, 954 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 2020).
A 74-year-old female mobile homeowner challenged the legality of the issuance and execution of a search warrant for her home, while looking for an illegal marijuana business. She further challenged the legality of her detention incident to the search. A federal appeals court found that there was probable cause for the search based on the reliability of the informant and the probability that evidence or contraband would be found in the residences on the property. The search warrant issued was not overbroad. The court also found that the officers acted reasonably when they continued to search the mobile home because the probable cause to search the mobile home did not depend on the suspect living there. Instead, the officers had probable cause to continue the search because they could still reasonably believe that the entire property was suspect and that the property was still under the suspect’s common control. Finally, the duration of the detention, which lasted about an hour, was reasonable. Blight v. City of Manteca, #17-17334. 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 36636
After a controlled buy of drugs took place, a police officer obtained a warrant to search 12011 Bramell. His affidavit asserted that a reliable confidential informant had been at two Burnette addresses and 12011 Bramell (the target location) and that a certain drug dealer had been selling cocaine and heroin out of 9542 Burnette for several months. Burnette Street and Bramell are eight miles apart, so the informant could not have simultaneously observed the locations as stated in the affidavit. Detroit police executed the warrant at the Bramell residence, which was owned by a retiree with no prior convictions or links to drug operations. Officers asked for his ID, which he provided while stating that he had a concealed pistol license and was carrying a weapon. He was then handcuffed and a sergeant allegedly slammed him against a wall. He had sustained a serious neck injury during military service, resulting in a spinal fusion operation and a disability-based retirement. The slam allegedly reinjured him. From the house, the police recovered $3,702 cash, weapons, a bulletproof vest, and ibuprofen pills. No charges were filed against the resident.A federal appeals court upheld the denial of qualified immunity to the sergeant on an excessive force claim and reversed the denial of qualified immunity to an officer on a false affidavit claim. Assaulting an unarmed individual, if true, is a clearly-established violation of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiff was regarded as unarmed after his weapon was removed from his control. Removing alleged falsehoods from the affidavit, the officer who obtained the warrant had not personally seen suspicious activity at the Bramell residence but he corroborated what the informant stated about the Burnette addresses. Officers, the court noted, need not corroborate every detail provided by an informant to show the informant’s reliability. Even without personally observing any drug activity at the Bramell residence, the officer put enough in the affidavit for a magistrate to conclude that the informant “who was correct about everything else” would be right that Bramell was a “stash house,” even if it ultimately turned out not to be. Butler v. City of Detroit, #18-1605, 936 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2019).
A lawsuit was filed on behalf of a two-year-old girl who allegedly suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of the blast of a flash-bang grenade in her residence. The plaintiffs claimed that the officers in a SWAT team, even though they knew that the homicide suspect they sought was already in custody, broke open the screen door of the suspect’s residence and threw a flash-bang grenade into the living room before a young woman could open the door with keys she was holding. The only people inside the home were three women and a two-year-old girl. The girl suffered PTSD from the officers' use of the flash-bang grenade. A federal appeals court ruled that the SWAT team officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Any reasonable officer would have known that the use of a flash-bang in these circumstances while executing a knock and announce warrant was excessive force. It was clearly established that the use of a flash-bang grenade was unreasonable when officers have no basis to believe they will face a threat of violence and when they unreasonably fail to determine whether there are any innocent bystanders in the area where the grenade will be deployed. Defendant police detectives, however, were entitled to summary judgment because there was probable cause to support the search warrant, even considering the omitted information, and because their decision to use a SWAT team, regardless of whether it was reasonable, did not violate clearly established law. Z. J. v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, #17-3365, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 22205, 2019 WL 3330459 (7th Cir.).
Officers aggressively searched the plaintiffs’ homes, armed with search warrants authorizing a search for drugs. The officers knocked in doors with rams, used flashbangs, and allegedly left the homes in complete disarray. During or immediately following a search, an officer called a housing code compliance officer to the scene. At each of the four homes, the inspector found code violations such as water heaters without inspection tags, bare electrical wiring, and non-working smoke detectors and then declared the home unsafe for occupancy. Some of the plaintiffs were arrested, but in each case, the charges were dismissed. A federal appeals court upheld in part summary judgment for the defendants and the validity of the search warrants. Probable cause supported two of the warrants, a third warrant was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause that official belief in the existence of probable cause was unreasonable, and the plaintiffs abandoned any challenge to the fourth warrant. Claims concerning the execution of the search warrants were properly rejected. The plaintiffs failed to show that the named officers actively participated in the use of excessive force causing destruction, supervised those who used excessive force, or owed the victims a duty of protection against the use of excessive force. The officers were properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' invasion of privacy claims because plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that the named police officers admitted the inspectors. Although the officers had no authority to admit third parties, even state actors, who had no warrant and could provide no assistance to the warranted searches, invasion-of-privacy claims failed because there was little evidence that the named officers admitted the inspectors into the homes. Gardner v. Evans, #17=1933, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 9943 2019 WL 1487308 (6th Cir.).
An officer’s confidential informant reported that he had bought heroin from a man named “Fred.” The warrant affidavit stated that the informant had bought heroin from Fred for a couple of months, Fred sold heroin from a particular home's basement, and the informant had bought heroin from Fred that day and saw Fred with over 100 baggies of heroin. The officer showed Doe a photo of the Edwards home, which he confirmed was the location. The officer drove the informant to the location, where he confirmed that identification. The officer used a database to obtain a photograph of Freddy Sutton, who Doe identified as “Fred.” The officer’s supervisor and an assistant state’s attorney approved the warrant application. Aware of the informant’s criminal history, the judge questioned him under oath and issued the search warrant. Officers carried out the search four days later. Edwards and his daughter were outside and prevented from entering their home during the search, which took about two hours and uncovered no illegal drugs and did not find the suspect present. There was minor property damage. The Edwardses sued, challenging the legality of the search. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of a municipal liability claim against the city because the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege the existence of any city policy or practice permitting searches without probable cause. Summary judgment was also granted to the defendant officers, as the warrant was supported by probable cause. The officers were additionally entitled to qualified immunity based on their reasonable reliance on the warrant. Edwards . Jolliff-Blake, #17-1848, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 3101 (7th Cir.).
A confidential informant told a police officer that a suspect had guns in his apartment. Since informant had previously given good information, the officer drove him by the apartment to confirm the address and took the informant before a judge to testify in support of warrant applications. The judge issued search warrants, and police executing the warrants found guns, ammunition, and heroin. The suspect was acquitted because the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the contraband seized was his. He sued the city and the officers, raising a Fourth Amendment claim for an unlawful search and arrest and a state‐law claim for malicious prosecution. The trial court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the warrant was defective because the informant’s tip was hearsay, reasoning that the tip was not offered to prove the truth of the matter it asserted. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment in favor of the defendants. There was probable cause for the search, arrest, and prosecution because of the informant’s tip. The court rejected the “irrational argument” that there was a disputed fact as to whether the informant existed or gave the tip at all, as waived for not having been raised below, as was the plaintiff’s supposed Brady claim concerning the officers’ failure to procure fingerprint evidence during the search. Wheeler v. Hronopoulos, #17-2073, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 15188 (7th Cir.).
Arriving at a home at 4 a.m. to execute a search warrant, 13 police officers wearing SWAT gear and face masks blew open the door of the home with a shotgun. The officers did not knock or announce their presence. The parents and their daughters were ordered to their knees at gunpoint, and the officers handcuffed a nephew who was present. The couple repeatedly asked to see the search warrant, but the officers refused to show it and did not allow the mother to sit with her seven-year-old daughter. Officers merely stated that they were searching for a “dangerous Russian,” who had evidently resided at the house more than a year before the search. Officers found neither the suspect nor any contraband. The police department produced the underlying search warrant in response to the couple’s lawsuit complaint. The warrant described the home and listed controlled substances and items connected to narcotics trafficking as items to be seized. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of the officers’ motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. The complaint stated a plausible claim that the officers violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by executing a search warrant on their home in an unreasonable manner. Greer v. City of Highland Park, #17-1281, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 5330, 2018 Fed. App. 41P (6th Cir.).
A plaintiff failed to plead a plausible Fourth Amendment claim of unreasonable search and seizure of an investment fund’s office for evidence of insider trading against federal law enforcement authorities because a corrected search warrant affidavit supported both probable cause for and the scope of the challenged search. He failed to plead a plausible Fifth Amendment claim that fabricated evidence (in the search warrant affidavit) deprived him of property without due process because the warrant would have issued on a corrected affidavit and thus any deprivation of the seized property was not the result of the fabricated evidence. The plaintiff also failed to plead any clearly established right to have federal officials state in a search warrant affidavit whether each mentioned person is or is not then a target of investigation, nor a right to have federal officials so state after the fact if the search becomes public knowledge; and he failed to plead sufficient facts as to the supervisor defendants' personal involvement in the submission of any misstatements to the magistrate judge. Ganek v. Leibowitz, #16-1463, 874 F.3d 73 (2nd Cir. 2017).
A corporal in the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission sued challenging the search of his residence pursuant to a search warrant. A federal appeals court found that the officer who obtained the search warrant did not act entirely unreasonably in believing that his affidavit established sufficient indicia of probable cause for the search and seizure of the items listed in the warrant, including to seize a deer, based on both an anonymous tip and a recorded jailhouse call. Additionally, the items described in the warrant were relevant to the criminal offense under investigation, as they directly related to the existence, capture, and maintaining of an illegal pet deer. Kiesling v. Spurlock, #16-2197, 859 F.3d 529 (8th Cir. 2017).
A man claimed that FBI agents and a
police detective violated his Fourth Amendment rights by the nighttime
execution on his home of a daytime only search warrant. The defendants were
entitled to qualified immunity on that claim when it was not clearly
established in Maryland that this would violate his rights. The appeals court
reversed, however, the dismissal of the claim that the defendants made-an
unjustified no-knock entry. Jones v. Kirchner, #14-5257, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis
15759 (D.C. Cir.).
A jury found that a
city and its police department violated a man's rights by obtaining a warrant
to search his home, while failing to disclose in seeking the warrant that he
had not been living in the house for seven months prior to the gang-related
shooting being investigated because he had been incarcerated for unrelated
charges. In determining whether to award attorneys' fees and costs against the
defendants, the appeals court held, it was appropriate to take into account the
settlement the plaintiff obtained against another city also involved in the
same incident, as a result of which he obtained $150,000 in damages, as well as
$169,856.34 in attorney fees, and $16,208.95 in costs, while only $5,000 in
damages were awarded against the first city after trial. The appeals court
upheld the trial court's award of $1.023 million in attorneys' fees finding
that the award was supported both by the public benefit of the lawsuit and the
$150,000 settlement against another party arising out of the same facts, while
ruling that further proceedings should be held on the $13,376.85 in costs
awarded by the trial court, taking into account the costs recovered in the
prior settlement. Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, #14-55557, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis
432 (9th Cir.).
The mother of a seven year old girl
suffering from brain cancer grew marijuana plants to extract oil thought to be
helpful in treatment. Her father-in-law, a police officer, knew of this and
assisted her, supplying special light bulbs and periodically checking on the
crop. When the girl died, there were various family disputes about her
obituary, who was allowed at the services, the display of religious symbols,
and the disposal of her ashes, which the father-in-law tried to take. The
father-in-law and a fellow officer then obtained a search warrant for the house
based on the father-in-law's observation of marijuana plants in the home's
basement. No such plants were found during the search, as they had been thrown
away after the girl's death. The girl's mother sued the officers and city for
unlawful search, claiming that there were falsehoods in the affidavit. A
federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit. While it called the
father-in-law's behavior "atrocious," there was no allegation that he
knew that the marijuana plants were gone. An officer's motive in applying for a
warrant does not invalidate a warrant that is supported by probable cause.
While the affidavit was misleading by failing to reveal the father-in-law's
relationship to the mother, candor in revealing it would not have undermined
probable cause. Scherr v. City of Chicago, #13-1992, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 12516
(7th Cir.).
Police did not exceed the scope of the consent a
homeowner gave them to be in the basement of his home to look for a possible
gas leak when they had to walk through a portion of the basement to access
another room. A search warrant subsequently issued was not without probable
cause since it was supported by an affidavit with details of the officers'
observations of allegedly illegal sawed off shotguns they had seen. There was
no evidence of either deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth
in obtaining the search warrant. Officers subsequently had probable cause to
arrest the homeowner on state law gun charges, despite the fact that he was
later acquitted. Fagnan v. City of Lino Lakes, #12-4038, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis
4372 (8th Cir.).
The defendants were not entitled to summary
judgment on the basis of qualified immunity for alleged Fourth Amendment
violations stemming from omissions from an investigator's application for a
search warrant for the plaintiff's residence. The two alleged material
omissions from the affidavit were the identity of the plaintiff as the resident
of the property and the fact that surveillance of the property had not led to
any observation of criminal activity. These facts, if known but omitted, would
undermine probable cause for the search, altering the weight that would have
been given in assessing the information given by a confidential informant and
raising a disputed issue of fact. McColley v. County of Rensselaer, #12-2220,
2014 U.S. App. Lexis 1124 (2nd Cir.).
Police had a warrant to search one of two apartments
on the third floor of the building. Both had rear doors opening on a common
landing. Police allegedly used a battering ram to enter the wrong apartment,
and entered pointing guns and screaming, handcuffed two occupants and
"ransacked" the apartment, only leaving after 15 minutes when another
officer told them they were in the wrong apartment. The officers claimed,
however, that, while they did open the wrong door, they did not enter,
immediately realizing their mistake. An independent claims adjuster and a
police review authority employee found no damage except to the door. A jury
rejected the plaintiff's claims. A federal appeals court upheld this result,
noting that a search that results from an "innocent mistake" is not
unreasonable or a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiff's
alternative argument, that simply looking inside the wrong apartment would
constitute a search, was rejected. Balthazar v. City of Chicago, #12-3378, 2013
U.S. App. Lexis 22744 (7th Cir.).
An officer obtained a no-knock search warrant for
a couple's residence based on a woman's call to a city hotline stating that her
sister was a felon possessing a gun unlawfully. The caller, however, had not
seen her sister or the gun in five years and the officers stated it as five
days on the warrant application. He was not entitled to qualified immunity on
an unlawful search claim. A reasonable jury could, under these circumstances,
find that the officer knowingly or with reckless disregard made false
statements in his warrant application. During the search of the residence, the
sleeping couple was woken by the no-knock entrance, and the husband was shot
twice. Betker v. Gomez, #11–3009, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18636 (7th Cir.).
In a criminal prosecution, a federal district
court found that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by
searching a suspect's Facebook page through the consented use of another
person's Facebook account, and using the information obtained to provide
probable cause for a search warrant. U.S. v. Meregildo, #11-Cr-576, 2012 U.S.
Dist. Lexis115085, 2012 WL 3264501 (S.D.N.Y.).
Newspapers had no First Amendment right to obtain
access to sealed court documents used in connection with the issuance of a
search warrant as part of an investigation into financial fraud. There was no
historical record of unrestricted public access to documents filed in search
warrant proceedings. Further, granting public access to such documents would be
detrimental to the search warrant application and process of criminal
investigation, particularly when the magistrate sufficiently stated the
justification for sealing the documents. In re: In the Matter of the Search of
Fair Finance, #10-4139, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18627, 2012 Fed. App. 0304P
(6th Cir.).
A police officer made reasonable efforts to
obtain a search warrant for a residence based on information from a gang
informant, and the warrant was supported by probable cause. Because of the
existence of multiple living units in what was mistakenly believed to be a
single family residence, however, and the failure of the warrant to specify
which unit to search, officers entered a unit occupied by someone other than
the suspect, a woman who was over seven months pregnant. The officers, from the
fact that they first found the front of the bottom floor occupied by an office,
and saw that they could not get to the rest of the building from there, should
have realized that the building was not a single family residence. They could
see that there were separate doors for first and second floor apartments, and
should have called off the search, the court reasoned. Instead, they searched
for an hour before acknowledging that they were in the wrong place. The search
violated the woman's Fourth Amendment rights, and the trial court improperly
granted summary judgment dismissing her unlawful search claims. Guzman v. City
of Chicago, # 08-2172, 565 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 2012).
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that officers were
entitled to qualified immunity and could not be held personally liable for
obtaining a potentially invalid overly broad warrant when they could reasonably
have believed that the warrant's scope was supported by probable cause. In this
case, any arguable defect in the warrant would have become apparent only based
on a close examination of the warrant application and comparison of the
supporting affidavit to the warrant's terms to determine whether the affidavit
sufficiently established probable cause to search for all items listed in the
warrant. In this case, a shotgun was confiscated while executing a search of a
home under a warrant for "all guns and gang-related material." The
"fact that a neutral magistrate has issued a warrant is the clearest
indication that the officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner."
The Court concluded that the "officers' judgment that the scope of the
warrant was supported by probable cause may have been mistaken, but it was not
'plainly incompetent.'" Messerschmidt v. Millender, #10-704, 2012 U.S.
Lexis 1687.
A police detective sought and obtained search
warrants for the homes of several gang members, based on information that the
gang was involved in a drive-by shooting and had a practice of storing the
weapons from such shootings at the residences of members not involved in an
incident. The affidavit for one of the warrants, however, failed to disclose
that the gang member living there had been in custody continuously since a time
prior to the shooting taking place. A jury could reasonably conclude that the
detective knew about this fact from reading the member's rap sheet and
recklessly or deliberately failed to disclose it when applying for the warrant.
The detective could be liable for the search. Additionally, even "if we
were to conclude that cause existed for a search, there would still be no basis
for authorizing night-time service. A nighttime incursion by a SWAT force is a
far more serious occurrence than an ordinary daytime intrusion . . . and
therefore requires higher justification beyond mere probable cause to
search." Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, #09-55898, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis
24383 (9th Cir.).
A man arrested for burglary told an officer that
his alleged accomplice had a girlfriend at whose apartment the stolen goods
from 18 burglaries had been stored. After an officer obtained a search warrant
and used it to seize various items at her apartment, the girlfriend sued,
claiming that the warrant affidavit was insufficient to provide probable cause.
The defendant officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the issue of
whether the affidavit sufficiently provided probable cause, as there was no
evidence that a reasonable officer would have noticed the alleged
discrepancies, such as the fact that only four of the categories of property
described to be seized could be linked to the two burglaries described in the
warrant. He was not entitled to qualified immunity, however, on claims that
items were seized that were not described with sufficient detail in the
warrant. Some items described were common household items, giving the officer
no ability to distinguish between allegedly stole goods and other goods
belonging to the girlfriend. As an example of this, the warrant authorized the
seizure of cameras without specifying the makes or models of the stolen cameras,
although these details were easily available in the reports on the burglaries.
The court stated that it simply requires "additional details, if they are
available, to help distinguish between contraband and legally possessed
property." Wheeler v. City of Lansing, #10-1128/, 660 F.3d
931 (6th Cir. 2011).
Even if it was true that a teacher
inappropriately touched a child's breasts while lifting her up in class, this
was not enough to justify an officer's obtaining of a search warrant for child
pornography in the teacher' home. The officer had no evidence of the teacher's
possession or attempted possession of child pornography, or use of home
computers to access such materials, so the search of the home and seizure of
computers was not supported by probable cause. The officer was still entitled
to qualified immunity from liability, however, due to a lack of clear precedent
on the issue. Dougherty v. City of Covina, #09-56395, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis
16879 (9th Cir.).
A man claimed that officers unlawfully exceeded the
scope of their search warrant when they searched his residence. A federal
appeals court rejected this claim, finding that a neutral magistrate judge
reviewed the affidavits supporting the warrant and properly found probable
cause, and that there was no evidence that the scope of the search permitted
under the warrant was exceeded. Grimes v. Thomason, #10-10760, 2011 U.S. App.
Lexis 4782 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
A man being prosecuted for armed bank
robbery was granted a motion to suppress a sample of his DNA to compare with
DNA found in a van believed to have been used by the robber, on the ground that
it had been obtained by way of a materially and recklessly false warrant
affidavit, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A paragraph in the affidavit
was false, as it misrepresented that police interviews of "various
witnesses" had observed a stolen van meeting up with a silver Volkswagen
van following the robbery. The officer writing the affidavit had not
participated in interviewing the witnesses or read the written witness
statements, and did not review the investigation reports in any detail. The
officer's drafting of the affidavit went beyond simple negligence into
recklessness, as it could be said that he had no evidentiary basis at all for
making the statement concerning the van. U.S. v. Brown, #09-3643, 2011 U.S.
App. Lexis 1059 (3rd Cir.).
A group of officers, including a SWAT team, gathered
one evening to execute a no-knock search warrant at a residence believed to be
the site of a marijuana growing operation. They used a ram to break down the
door, aggressively yelled as they entered, and forcibly removed a female
resident from the couch, placing her roughly on the floor. Her husband was
tackled from behind, handcuffed, placed in leg restraints, and tasered. He also
claimed that he was repeatedly punched and kicked at various times. No evidence
of drugs was found, although the officers allegedly ransacked the home, smashed
holes in walls, smashed two doors, and "ate some candy and drank a bottle
of soda found in one of the bedrooms." The homeowners also claimed they
lost several pets because of the officers' actions, and that they suffered
damage to a dresser, a backyard fence, a waterbed, and a rocker/recliner. They
sued for unreasonable execution of the search warrant and excessive use of
force, as well as lack of probable cause for the search. The defendants moved
for summary judgment, and while they asked for qualified immunity, their papers
only discussed, in any detail, the probable cause and excessive force claims,
making no mention of the claim for unreasonable execution of the warrant. The
trial court therefore denied summary judgment on the unreasonable execution
claim. A federal appeals court held that this denial was not immediately
appealable, as it did not rule on the issue of qualified immunity on that
claim, but simply denied summary judgment. Peay v. Murphy, #09-4198, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 20038 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
A federal appeals court upheld a $100,000 damage
award to a plaintiff suing for unlawful search of his residence, finding that
the search warrant utilized was based on an affidavit lacking in probable
cause. It mentioned no specific crimes thought to have probably been committed,
made no link between the residence to be searched and any crime, and sought
broad authority to search for any documents pertaining to the plaintiff. This
was so lacking in any indicia of probable cause as to render any belief in its
legality unreasonable. Ellison v. Balinski, #09-2033, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
23409 (6th Cir.).
A homeowner claimed that police unlawfully
searched his home and seized marijuana plants found there without probable
cause, doing so by misleading a magistrate into issuing a search warrant for
the premises. This was allegedly accomplished by misstating the plaintiff's
criminal history. Rejecting this argument, and upholding summary judgment for
the state trooper who obtained the search warrant, a federal appeals court held
that even if the plaintiff's criminal history was misrepresented in the
affidavit for the search warrant, the other information in the affidavit
sufficed to supply probable cause since there was information from the DEA that
the plaintiff had received marijuana cultivation products shipments, and the
trooper himself stated that he found marijuana cigarette remnants in the
plaintiff's trash in close proximity to items of his mail, Parkey v. Sample,
#09-3966, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 22113 (6th Cir.).
A plaintiff sued an officer who drafted an
affidavit used to obtain a warrant used to search his property, claiming that
his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. A federal appeals court, in
rejecting this claim, noted that to survive summary judgment in a federal civil
rights lawsuit, a claim for judicial deception in the obtaining of a search
warrant must establish that the officer engaged in deliberate falsehood or
reckless disregard for the truth in the affidavit, and show that, but for this
dishonesty, the search warrant would not have established probable cause. As
the plaintiff failed, in this case, to show that the officer deliberately or
recklessly made false statements or omissions in his affidavit that were
material to the finding of probable cause, the officer was entitled to qualified
immunity. Littlefair v. Gosner, #09-35806, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19264 (Unpub.
9th Cir.).
A federal appeals court found that officers who
executed a search warrant on a residence were not entitled to qualified
immunity from unreasonable search and seizure claims by the residents, as
portions of the warrant were “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to
render official belief in its existence unreasonable." Among other things,
the warrant authorized a search and seizure of all firearms, firearms-related
materials, and "gang-related materials," which was found to be
unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the Fourth Amendment's
specificity requirement for search warrants. Millender v. County of L.A.,
#07-55518, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17673 (9th Cir.).
In a lawsuit by a married couple
challenging the validity of a search warrant used to search their residence,
which uncovered evidence leading to the subsequent arrest and prosecution of
the husband, a federal appeals court ruled that the warrant was facially valid,
and based on an affidavit that established probable cause for its issuance.
Additionally, the affidavit described with sufficient detail both the place to
be searched and the things to be seized. All those participating in the search,
with only the possible exception of the officer writing the affidavit, were
entitled to rely on this facially valid warrant. As to the officer writing the
affidavit, his failure to sign it was unintentional and unknown to him when the
search warrant was issued. Such innocent or negligent mistakes did not show a
constitutional violation. Fleming v. Barber, #09-11743, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
12500 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
Officers searched an attorney's law office and
residence using a warrant, hoping to find stolen laptop computers and
controlled substances. The plaintiff argued, in her subsequent civil rights
lawsuit against the county sheriff, that the affidavit for the warrant was so
clearly lacking in probable cause that the only real issue should be the amount
of damages to be awarded. The appeals court stated that it was "difficult
to conclude" that generalized statements about the plaintiff's alleged
wrongdoing established a "substantial" basis for the search. But it
also concluded that, even if the warrant lacked probable cause, that did not
necessarily mean that the defendant was personally liable for damages for the
search. The affidavit contained very general statements obtained from a known
thief and cocaine user who claimed to have paid the attorney for legal services
with a stolen laptop, and that the attorney used drugs. The affidavit for the
warrant was far from ideal, but there were still a few indicia of reliability
so that an officer could reasonably believe that there was probable cause. A
reasonably trained officer would not be required to second guess the judge who
authorized the warrant, as it was not that clearly lacking in probable cause.
The defendant was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Junkert v. Massey,
#09-2908, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12614 (7th Cir.).
The highest court in New York has ruled that under
state law police cannot use general search warrants that are issued for a
specific location to search "all persons present" unless there is
probable cause to believe that a particular person is involved in a crime. The
ruling, which was unanimous, appears to end what reportedly was a frequent
practice in the state. The court ruled in a case involving a search warrant
used in a drug raid on a home, and found that the mandate in the warrant to
search "all persons present" did not suffice to justify the strip
search of a man found on the premises. The court ordered the dismissal of drug
charges that were lodged against him following the search. The court also commented
that even if the warrant had sufficed to give the police probable cause to
search the man, the strip search, under these circumstances, was so intrusive
that it violated both the U.S. and New York Constitutions. People v.
Mothersell, #43, 2010 N.Y. Lexis 59.
Plaintiffs whose home was searched pursuant to a
warrant argued that the warrant was improperly obtained, that it lacked
particularity, and that chukka sticks seized during the search were not covered
by the plain view principle. The appeals court rejected these arguments,
finding that the warrant provided the basis for a search of the entire premises
for cocaine, cash, drug paraphernalia, books, and records. These materials
could have been contained in a coat closet, so that the chukka sticks were
properly found there. Since possession of chukka sticks is unlawful under N.Y.
law, they were correctly seized when observed in plain view, leading to the
plaintiffs' arrest. Sostre v. County of Suffolk, #09-1835, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
2433 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.)
A married couple and their two children sued a
city and one of its detectives for unlawful search, failure to "knock and
announce," and excessive force. The detective, while searching for
suspects in a stabbing, received information from a confidential information in
which the names of a suspect and his mother were similar to the husband and
wife's names. He used this information to obtain a search warrant for the
plaintiffs' residence. The search was carried out by a SWAT team and a K-9
unit, who entered the home with drawn weapons. All four residents were
"rounded up," but the officers then realized that they were in the
wrong house. A federal appeals court found that there was sufficient evidence
from which a jury could find that the search warrant was not supported by
probable cause and that the detective had made representations about the
location of the suspect that were either knowingly false or made with reckless
disregard of the truth. As for the "knock and announce" and excessive
force claims, the method with which the search had been carried out was not
objectively unreasonable. Walker v. City of Wilmington, #08-4218, 2010 U.S.
App. Lexis 853 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Although an affidavit for a search warrant had two
possibly deceptive misrepresentations, they were not "critical" for a
finding of probable cause. An identification of the wife in the home in
connection with a murder was sufficiently reliable and established probable
cause. Additionally, there was no requirement that the affidavit establish
probable cause to arrest her for the murder. It was sufficient that it
established probable cause for the search. The officers were also entitled to
qualified immunity for the subsequent arrests, since they relied, in good
faith, on legal advice from a prosecutor in making the arrests of the residents
of the home. Anonymous tips received, which claimed that someone else had
committed the murder, were insufficient to eliminate probable cause. Ewing v.
City of Stockton, #08-15732, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26799 (9th Cir.).
A police officer in Louisiana claimed that he was
in charge of a center distributing supplies during Hurricane Katrina. He
further argued that political animus a police chief had towards him was the
reason that an illegal search of his residence was carried out and he was
falsely arrested for purported theft of supplies. The officer sufficiently
alleged that a detective, in applying for search and arrest warrants, both made
false statements and omitted material information from the affidavits. Further
discovery was ordered to determine if a police officer who entered the
plaintiff's property and reported seeing allegedly stolen supplies was entitled
to qualified immunity, because of conflicting versions as to his purposes for
entering. Nothing more than "speculation," however, supported the
claim that the police department's chief of investigations approved the filing
of false affidavits, and there was also insufficient detail to support a claim
that the police chief was personally involved in directing the filing of the
affidavits. Claims against the city were properly dismissed in the absence of a
showing that anyone acted pursuant to a municipal policy or custom. Floyd v.
City of Kenner, #08-30637, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23913 (5th Cir.).
The plaintiff claimed that the officer who
executed search warrants for two apartments purportedly rented by him falsely
stated that he received a phone call from a confidential informant to the
effect that the plaintiff had moved his personal possessions from one apartment
to the other. An appeals court addressing illegal search and seizure claims
noted that the plaintiff based his assertions of fact on the officer's cell
phone records, while the call at issue was made to the officer's office phone. The
officer's statements in support of a warrant application regarding the
purported receipt of the phone call was not so inconsistent with police reports
as to create a material issue of fact. The prisoner argued that the officer
failed to produce his office phone records, but he failed to pursue the
records' release before the trial court's grant of summary judgment against
him. Dukes v. City of Minneapolis; #07-2531, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16844 (Unpub.
8th Cir.).
A homeowner claimed that police officers entered
his home armed with a search warrant issued because of an officer's false
statements, that two of the officers knew that the statements were false when
they participated in the search, and that officers used excessive force while
doing so. Dismissing federal civil rights claims against supervisory police
officials, a federal court found that, even if the facts of the search were as
stated, there was no evidence from which the supervisory officials could be
held liable. There was evidence, for instance, that a police superintendent
undertook "numerous" actions to investigate and remedy police conduct
he had become aware of, and that the police commander took steps to make sure
all officers received civil rights training. Cruz-Acevedo v. Toledo-Davila,
#07-1844, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 92018 (D.P.R.).
Summary judgment for police officers was upheld
in a lawsuit over their search of a home pursuant to a search warrant, and the
arrest of the occupants for contributing to a minor's delinquency. The plaintiffs
failed to show that any of the statements in the affidavit for the search
warrant constituted intentional or reckless misrepresentations or omissions,
and there was probable cause for the warrant. Suarez v. Town of Ogden Dunes,
#08-2544, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 20322 (7th Cir.).
A sheriff was told that a farmer had some
marijuana plants inside a Quonset hut on his property. Officers then searched
the farm after obtaining a warrant. The farmer sued, claim illegal search and
seizure. A federal appeals court held that the sheriff was not entitled to
qualified immunity from liability. "Because the warrant permits a general
search and seizure of 'all other evidence of criminal activity,' we hold it was
a general warrant prohibited by the Fourth Amendment." The fact that the
affidavit for the warrant was incorporated into the warrant by reference, the
court stated, did not save the warrant's validity, since the officers only
possessed probable cause to conduct a search for evidence concerning the cultivation
of marijuana, but the warrant purported to authorize the seizure of any
possible evidence of any crime in any jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the
warrant authorized exactly the type of "rummaging" through the
farmer's belongings seeking evidence of possibly unsuspected prior crimes, or
of no crime at all, which it said the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent.
Cassady v. Goering, #07-1092, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 11736 (10th Cir.).
Two deputies reasonably relied on a search
warrant approved by a prosecutor and a judge in making a nighttime search of a
home during their investigation of an alleged assault by the homeowner's foster
son. There was evidence to indicate that the son was at the home, and, even if
the warrant was arguably overbroad with respect to evidence concerning gang
membership and firearms, the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity in
that they could reasonably rely on those who approved the warrant to limit its
scope to items for which probable cause was shown. Millender v. County of Los
Angeles, #07-55518, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9735 (9th Cir.).
While the issuance of a search warrant was valid, since
it was supported by information supplied by an informant and corroborated by
police, officers should have called off the search of the residence at the
beginning when they realized that the building did not fit the warrant's
description of a single family home, but instead had various units, including a
real estate office. The warrant did not specify which unit was to be searched.
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit asserting that
they performed an unreasonable search of a woman's home and then placed her
under arrest after a search of the wrong address of a third person who was the
actual subject of the warrant. Guzman v. City of Chicago, #08-2172, 2009 U.S.
App. Lexis 10177 (7th Cir.).
A federal trial court found that a homeowner and
her son made a "substantial" showing that an officer lied in his
affidavit seeking a search warrant for their home by saying that he found mail
addressed to the residence in garbage bags. The son swore that he and his
mother shredded any documents that showed their address. However, the affidavit
for the search warrant, even lacking the statements about the mail, still
showed probable case, based on the officer's statement concerning an anonymous
tip of drug activity in the home, and his subsequent investigation, which
observed heavy foot traffic there and found marijuana residue in the garbage
bags. The officer, therefore, was given qualified immunity on claims related to
the validity of the warrant. Further proceedings were ordered, however, on
whether officers executing the search warrant failed to knock and announce
their presence before entering. Cotton v. Sassak, #2:06-cv-15208, 2009 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 25480 (E.D. Mich.).
An officer acted in an objectively reasonable
manner in seeking to obtain a search warrant for a home following a shooting.
He heard the shooting victims identify two assailants and gathered evidence
identifying them and linking them to a residence and to the victim's roommate.
Additionally, both the victim and his roommate identified one of the residents
of the home from a photo array as a participant in the crime. General
allegations that the officer, in his warrant application, engaged in the
deliberate hiding of material and exculpatory information did not suffice to
show that the warrant was lacking in probable cause. There was no indication
that the officer had any personal stake in the case or that he acted in any way
other than as an impartial investigator. There was also no evidence that the
warrant affidavit included deliberate falsehoods, or that the officer engaged
in reckless disregard of the truth. Morris v. Lanpher; #08-2040, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 8687 (8th Cir.).
A worker's compensation enforcement officer was
entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in searching the plaintiff's
insurance business office and seizing files pursuant to a search warrant. While
the warrant itself failed to identify the place to search or the items to be
seized, the attached affidavit, which was incorporated into the warrant did do
so. The officer failed to leave the affidavit with the warrant due to certain
confidential information stated in it, leading to the suppression, at the
plaintiff's criminal trial, of the evidence seized. Despite this, the law
concerning this was not clearly established at the time of the search, since
the suppression of the evidence was based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision
subsequently decided, so the officer's actions were arguably lawful at the time
of the search. Battle v. Webb, No. 08-12696, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 22823 (Unpub.
11th Cir.). Note: The U.S. Supreme Court case at issue was Groh v.
Ramirez, #02-811, 540 U.S. 551 (2004), on the basis of which the state trial
court ruled, in the criminal case, that the failure to leave a copy of the
affidavit with the defendant at the time of the search rendered the search and
seizure illegal. The search at issue took place in 2001.
When an apartment resident claimed that a search
warrant obtained for her home was negligently requested by an officer based on
factual inconsistencies and unreliable information, she failed to show a
constitutional violation, which requires intentional or reckless disregard for
the truth rather than negligence or an innocent mistake. The plaintiff did not
show that the affidavit for the warrant contained false material information.
Andreen v. Lanier, Civil Action No. 08-cv-0810, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 86720
(D.D.C.).
Materials which a newsletter publisher mailed to
town officials adequately supported an application for a search warrant because
it included a clearly pornographic picture. This was sufficient to establish
probable cause for a violation of a state harassment statute and for commission
of a breach of the peace. Accordingly, the search warrant was supported by
probable cause, even if the officials were motivated, in seeking the warrant,
to silence or deter the publisher's criticism of the police department in his
newsletter. The publisher also failed to show that this attempt to silence or
deter him, if that was the motive, was successful. Smolicz v. Borough/Town of
Naugatuck, No. 06-5439, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12503 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
When homeowners lived in a small house which had
a security door which was difficult to breach, officers could properly be found
by a jury not to have acted unreasonably in forcing the door open while
executing a search warrant when they received no response within five to eight
seconds of knocking on the door and announcing their police presence. The issue
of whether the officers acted unreasonably was for the jury, and they could
have found the officers to have acted unreasonably, but did not do so.
Howell v. Polk, No. 06-16418, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 15037 (9th Cir.).
While a district attorney who reviewed and
approved an affidavit for a search warrant for a student's residence was only
entitled to qualified, rather than absolute immunity, since she was not acting
in her prosecutorial role at the time, the plaintiff student failed to show
that a reasonable prosecutor should have known that the professor he was
accused of defaming in an online journal was a public figure, that the statements
made involved a matter of public concern, and that the statements were not made
with the actual malice which was then required for the student to be subject to
criminal prosecution under a Colorado state libel statute. The prosecutor was
therefore entitled to qualified immunity. The lawsuit was dismissed, and the
prosecutor was also awarded costs. Mink v. Knox, Civil Case No. 04-cv-00023,
2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46193 (D. Colo.).
Hotel guests faced criminal charges on the basis
of evidence found by an officer during a warrant-based search of their room.
The charges were dropped, however, after the trial court suppressed the
evidence, finding that the search was unlawful. The plaintiffs then sued the
city and the state drug enforcement officer who conducted the search. A federal
appeals court ruled that the suppression of the evidence by the court in the
criminal case was not binding in the civil rights case as to whether the
officer had probable cause for the search of the hotel room, and further found
that, under the totality of the circumstances, there had been probable cause
for the search. Summary judgment was therefore upheld for the officer, although
on a different basis than had been used in the trial court's reasoning, which
had held that the plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered any damages
because of the search. Cox v. Pate, No. 07-1635, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12747
(Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A search warrant presented to the occupant of a
building was not invalid simply because the copy shown to him lacked the
signature of the issuing judge. The court found that the original of the
warrant was properly signed and issued, and was supported by probable cause.
The court also found that it was legitimate for officers to detain the building
occupant while conducting their search, which was occasioned by his employment
of a suspect, even though the search did not involve a quest to find
contraband. The court also rejected the occupant's argument that excessive
force, which injured his wrists, was used in handcuffing him and detaining him
in a squad car during the search. Housley v. City of Edina, No. 07-1330, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 3799 (8th Cir.).
During a criminal investigation concerning the
removal and disposal of an underground gasoline storage tank, a search warrant
was obtained for a premises, and, during the search, materials not listed in
the warrant were found. A second warrant for the premises was then obtained and
executed. Subsequently, criminal charges against the suspects were dropped. In
a lawsuit for unlawful search and seizure, the court found that those involved
in the first search were entitled to qualified immunity because they could rely
on the magistrate's determination of probable cause, and a review of the
warrant by two prosecutors. The second warrant, however, was found to
"obviously" lack probable cause, since it was based on the prior
discovery of several checks and a ledger that were dated five years prior to
the alleged fraudulent acts being investigated, which were plainly insufficient
to provide probable cause. An investigator, therefore, was not entitled to
qualified immunity on that second search. KRL v. Estate of Moore, No. 06-16282,
2008 U.S. App. Lexis 880 (9th Cir.).
A DEA agent who was alleged to have intentionally
misled a federal magistrate into issuing a warrant to search the residence of a
man subsequently arrested and prosecuted on a drug offense was entitled to
summary judgment in the arrestee's federal civil rights lawsuit. The cocaine
found during the search was the basis for a criminal conviction on possession
of the drug with intent to distribute it, and the claim that the information in
the affidavit for the warrant was "stale" or that the DEA agent
made material misrepresentations to obtain the warrant had already been
rejected in a decision upholding the conviction. Baxter v Crawford,
No. 06-15375, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11935 (11th Cir.).
Plaintiff in lawsuit over the alleged unlawful
search of a woman's apartment pursuant to a warrant was not entitled to an
order compelling the city and officers who obtained the warrant to reveal the
identity of the confidential information whose information was used to provide
probable cause for the warrant. The plaintiff failed to show how the identity of
the informant had anything to do with whether it was illegal to have sought to
obtain a search warrant, arrest the plaintiff and search her apartment based on
the information they had. Guzman v. City of Chicago, No. 05C6617, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 28377 (N.D. Ill.).
Officer was not entitled to summary judgment in
property owner's lawsuit alleging that he obtained a search warrant for his
house by use of an affidavit containing false information. While an informant
allegedly told officers that there were stolen goods in a white shed near the
plaintiff's home, the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant stated that
the informant told the police that the stolen goods were in the house. The
plaintiff claimed that this false information was used in the affidavit on
purpose in order to provide an opportunity to search his house for drugs
without probable cause to do so. The trial judge found that there was evidence
that the officer had an "ulterior motive" for searching the
plaintiff's house for drugs, as indicated by the fact that the search of the
house continued for two hours after the stolen property sought was found in the
shed. Durfee v. Rich, No. 02-10041, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23340 (E.D. Mich.).
Search of residential premises pursuant to search
warrant was proper, despite the suspect's claim that the warrant was obtained
through "judicial deception" by falsely calling a government witness
a "confidential informant." The court found that even if that
description was inaccurate, the plaintiff did not show that the warrant would
not have been issued in its absence. Further proceedings were ordered, however,
on Montana state law right to privacy claims. Nickel v. Woods, No. No.
05-35592, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7482 (9th Cir.).
Trial court found that search warrant for
residence was overly broad. A jury then awarded $3,000 in actual damages and
$3,500 in punitive damages against a sheriff for damage to the plaintiff's
property. The trial judge found that there was adequate evidence to support the
jury's conclusion that the sheriff should be liable for property damage, but
that a deputy should not, as he did not cause the damage. The court also found
that the jury, in arriving at the figure of $6,500 in damages, appeared to have
arrived at a "compromise" verdict that was not consistent with the
evidence, entitling the plaintiff to a new trial against the sheriff. Cassady
v. Goering, No. 03-cv-01008, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11175 (D. Colo.)
Affidavit for search warrant for apartment
provided adequate probable cause to believe that evidence of drug-related crime
would be found there, and made it reasonable for officers to believe that a
risk of the destruction of evidence justified execution of the search warrant
at night. Occupant could not assert her claim that the officers who searched
her apartment failed to "knock and announce" before they entered,
when she conceded that she was asleep when the officers entered. Taylor v. City
of Detroit, No. 05-CV-70489, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4587 (E.D. Mich.). [N/R]
Federal appeals court reinstates lawsuit against
police officers for obtaining a search warrant and carrying out a search, based
on allegations that they did so in bad faith, and knew that the supporting
statements presented were misleading and false. Schindler v. French, No.
05-4174, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 941 (2nd Cir.). [N/R]
Even if the 8 paragraphs that a homeowner
challenged in an 11-page, 38-paragraph affidavit for a search warrant for his
residence were false, the remainder of the affidavit was adequate to supply
probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Accordingly, the
homeowner's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated and the FBI agent who
filed the affidavit to obtain the warrant was entitled to qualified immunity. Haire
v. Thomas, 06-12428, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27608 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Even though a search warrant for a home did not
describe the property to be seized, a reasonable officer could have believed
that it was sufficient because of its reference to an attached affidavit which
did mention the evidence sought. Accordingly, the officers were entitled to
qualified immunity. Officers were not constitutionally required to serve the
search warrant on the resident before beginning the search. Finally, while the
warrant authorized the search to take place any time between 6 and 10 a.m., the
officers' minor deviation from this, in beginning the search at 5:50 a.m. did
not violate the resident's constitutional rights. Rivera Rodriguez v.
Beninato, No. 05-2748, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28141 (1st Cir.). [N/R]
Affidavit for warrant for the seizure
of a suspect's DNA in an investigation seeking a serial killer and rapist
was not supported by probable cause. Anonymous tips which were not corroborated
were insufficient to provide probable cause, as were a 20-year-old burglary
conviction and the fact that the suspect was unemployed. Other information
allegedly relied on by the detective who submitted the affidavit to the judge,
such as an FBI profile of the man sought, was irrelevant, since it was not
provided to the judge. Kohler v. Englade, No. 05-30541, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
28841 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Search warrant for arrestees' residence was
supported by probable cause based on undercover officer's statements that he
twice bought cocaine from persons who, after receiving money for the drugs,
entered the residence and later returned with the narcotics. Urbanique
Production v. City of Montgomery, No. Civ.A.2:03CV1150, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1193
(M.D. Ala. 2006). [N/R]
Officers could not be held liable for unlawful
search and seizure when they conducted their search of a residence on the basis
of a facially valid search warrant. Overholt v. Montville Township, No.
05-3118, 169 Fed. App. 447 (6th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Officers' actions in confining tenants during the
search of their apartment under a warrant which did not state which of two
apartments on the second floor should be searched was "privileged,"
barring their false imprisonment claim against the city. Paulemond v. City of
New York, 812 N.Y.S.2d (Sup. App. Term 2006). [N/R]
Officers' initial entry into garage apartment
adjacent to home being searched under warrant for drugs was a reasonable
mistake, but genuine factual issues as to whether they acted reasonably in
continuing the search there and detaining the occupants for approximately an
hour and a half required further proceedings. Harman v. Pollock, No. 04-4294,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 10886 (10th Cir.). [2006 LR Jun]
Police detective who mistakenly, but reasonably,
entered the wrong college dorm room while executing a search warrant during a
drug raid was entitled to qualified immunity in student's lawsuit asserting
federal and Maryland state claims for unreasonable search and seizure,
unreasonable detention, and excessive use of force. Mazuz v. State of MD, No.
05-1463, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 7660 (4th Cir.). [2006 LR May]
Search of woman's second floor apartment under a
search warrant intended for the third floor apartment of a male suspected of
drug dealing was not a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights when the
entrance to the third floor was a doorway on the second floor, and the suspect,
arrested on the sidewalk outside while selling drugs, told officers he lived on
the second floor. Walker v. Bonenberger, No. 04-3955, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 4522
(8th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
Inspection of two boardinghouses for rat
infestation by public health personnel accompanied by police was supported by
probable cause based on warrant issued after information was received
concerning the buildings' filthy conditions. Detention of all occupants of the
buildings during the inspections was reasonable and carried out in a reasonable
manner and for legitimate purposes. Dawson v. City of Seattle, No. 03-35858,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 1663 (9th Cir.). [2006 LR Mar]
While a search of a business, under a search
warrant, to search for documents concerning ownership of computers, which were
not evidence of crime, violated the rights of the business owners, officers who
obtained and executed the warrant were entitled to qualified immunity from
liability. They consulted with a prosecutor who told them to go ahead and
reviewed the affidavit and warrant, and a judge issued the warrant. Under these
circumstances, their actions were reasonable, even if mistaken. Armstrong v.
City of Melvindale, No. 04-2192, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 251 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR
Feb]
Police detective violated a couple's clearly
established constitutional rights by entering their apartment to execute a
search warrant when he knew that the warrant was ambiguous as to which of two
apartments on the second floor of a building was to be searched. The detective
acted improperly in resolving the ambiguity on his own, rather than seeking
clarification from the magistrate who issued the warrant. Jones v. Wilhelm, No.
04-1261, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 21386 (7th Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
Federal appeals court overturns jury verdict of
over $2 million, finding that exigent circumstances justified police officers'
no-knock entry in home pursuant to search warrant. Doran v. Eckold, No.
03-1810, 409 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Aug]
Even if there were falsehoods in the anonymous
tip received by a state trooper which was, in part, the basis for the issuance
of a search warrant for the home, the warrant was lawfully obtained and any
falsehoods were moot. The trooper obtained probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant when he observed marijuana plants on the doorsteps of the home and
boards over the windows. Edens v. Kennedy, No. 03-2108, 112 Fed. Appx. 870 (4th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Police officer's alleged pat-down search of
protest organization's office manager during execution of a search warrant was
unreasonable when carried out without any individualized reasonable suspicion
that he was involved in criminal activity or possessed weapons. In light of the
fact that the warrant was not for weapons or contraband, but rather for protest
documents and photographs, it did not justify generalized detention and
pat-down of all those present in the absence of such reasonable suspicion.
Denver Justice Comm. v. City of Golden, No. 03-1470, 405 F.3d 923 (10th Cir.
2005). [2005 LR Jul]
Police officers and sheriff's deputy were not
entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly seizing "truckloads" of
personal property while executing search warrant at residence for the sole
purpose of supporting sentencing enhancement in a pending case by proving that
the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club was a gang, or for shooting two dogs at the
residence. San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San
Jose, No. 02-16329, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Jun]
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
on their alleged use of excessive force while executing a search warrant on the
home of a dentist and his wife based on suspicion of growing marijuana, when
there was no belief that the home's occupants were armed or would resist or
flee. Appeals court finds that, if alleged lies by deputy were removed from
affidavit for warrant, there would be nothing left justifying its the issuance.
Baldwin v. Placer County, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 6626 (9th Cir.). [2005 LR Jun]
Officers could not have reasonably believed that
supervising officers were not violating arrestee's civil rights during
execution of no-knock search warrant on home in allegedly conducting invasive
body cavity searches of two women in front of male officers and visual body
cavity searches of three men, or by allegedly physically assaulting persons
present during the search without provocation. Defendants were not, therefore,
entitled to qualified immunity. Officer who allegedly misled the magistrate
into issuing the warrant by omitting material facts was also not entitled to
qualified immunity. Bolden v. Village of Monticello, No. 04 CIV.1372, 344 F.
Supp. 2d 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Search warrant used to search warehouse for
machine guns was defective in failing to specify items to be searched for and
seized, so federal agents were not entitled to qualified immunity on civil
rights lawsuit by operator of warehouse and owner of stored firearms. Warrant's
reference to sealed affidavit in court file which contained those details and
did not accompany warrant during search was insufficient to correct defect.
Federal appeals court allows civil rights lawsuit to go forward despite upheld
criminal conviction of importer of machine guns. Baranski v. Unknown ATF
Agents, No. 03-5582, 401 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR May]
U.S. Supreme Court: Police officers did not act
unreasonably in detaining an occupant of a home in handcuffs during the
execution of a search warrant, and they also did not violate her rights by
questioning her, during the detention, concerning her immigration status.
Muehler v. Mena, #03-1423, 125 S. Ct. 1465 (2005). [2005 LR May]
Deputy sheriff's failure to include 13-month-old
and 17-month-old reports of prior investigations in affidavit for search
warrant for farm on probable cause of animal mistreatment did not show
intentional or reckless misleading of the magistrate. The old reports, on which
no charges had been issued, were "stale" and not altogether
exculpatory. Further, the old reports did not negate a finding of current
probable cause based on the sworn statements of five separate complainants, and
the deputy's own investigation. Officers who executed the warrant were entitled
to qualified immunity on seizing farmer's daughter after she attempted to lock
herself in the farmhouse bathroom, since they had a security reason--the
presence of weapons--for gathering all occupants outside the house as soon as
possible. The house would not be secure until she was removed. Spafford v.
Romanowsky, No. 02 Civ. 6348, 348 F. Supp. 2d 40 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Police officers who searched home of suspects
pursuant to search warrant after purchasing VHS videotapes and Nintendo games
suspected to be stolen from them in an on-line auction did not violate the
Fourth Amendment. Seizure of DVDs, non-Nintendo videogames, and other related
materials not specified in the warrant was proper under the plain view
doctrine. Russell v. Harms, No. 04-2065 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1636 (7th Cir.
February 02, 2005). [2005 LR Mar]
Officer who swore out affidavit for search warrant
for apartment was entitled to qualified immunity when woman's statements that
she had observed illegal prescription drug sales there were included. The mere
fact that she was intoxicated, and had been involved in a domestic dispute with
the resident did not alter the result. Hale v. Kart, No. 03-1793, 2005 U.S.
App. Lexis 599 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Feb]
Prosecutors who approved allegedly facially
invalid post-indictment search warrant of indictee's property were not entitled
to absolute immunity from liability to the extent that the warrant sought to
obtain evidence of crimes not charged in the indictment, but were entitled to
qualified immunity to the extent the warrant was aimed at obtaining evidence to
prosecute the pending charges. District attorney was entitled to qualified
immunity, however, on approval of allegedly overbroad search warrant, because
it was not so lacking in indications of probable cause as to make a belief in
probable cause unreasonable. KRL v. Moore, No. 02-15296, 384 F.3d 1106 (9th
Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Oklahoma state law enforcement officers and state
could not be held liable for search of business under warrant seeking evidence
of drug trafficking. Probable cause for the warrant existed when search warrant
affidavit stated that law enforcement agent personally purchased a product
containing a controlled substance at the business premises. Employee of
business who was allegedly misidentified as the business owner in statements to
the press by a law enforcement agent could not recover damages for defamation
when the statement was made on the basis of state tax records and any
misrepresentation was unintentional. Tanique, Inc. v. Oklahoma Bureau of
Narcotics, No. 99,091, 99 P.3d 1209 (Okla. Civ. App. Div. 2 2004). [N/R]
Officers did not exceed the scope of a search
warrant for evidence of drug crime by seizing photographs, personal papers,
jewelry, doorknobs and locks, when the warrant authorized seizure of "any
other instruments of the crime." Dearmon v. Burgess, No. 01-3096, 388 F.3d
609 (8th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Jan]
Search warrant issued on the basis of an
affidavit which did not establish a link between criminal activity and the
residence to be searched or even that the address was the residence of the
suspect was so lacking in probable cause as to make reliance on it objectively
unreasonable. Mills v. City of Barbourville, No. 02-6404, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis
23753 (6th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Jan]
Occupants of a home mistakenly identified in a
search warrant and subjected to a no-knock search by members of a Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team presented an arguable issue as to whether the
city's policies or lack of policies concerning the issuance of no-knock search
warrants caused a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. Because of the
"hyper-intrusive" nature of such searches, the court comments, the
government should show more than the standard requirement of probable cause to
obtain such a warrant. At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the
city was required to demand that the officer in charge of an investigation
personally provide visual verification of the address in a search warrant,
finding that a policy of allowing such verification by other officers was
reasonable. Solis v. City of Columbus, No. 2:02-CV-788, 319 F. Supp. 2d 797
(S.D. Ohio 2004).[N/R]
Search warrant for a residence which authorized a
search of "all persons" present for drugs was not adequately
supported by detailed information to support probable cause to believe that all
occupants of the premises were involved in criminal activity. Officers who
carried out the search pursuant to the warrant, and who strip-searched or
pat-searched four adults and two minors in the home, were entitled to qualified
immunity because the law on the issue was not clearly established at the time
of the search. Owens Ex Rel. Owens v. Lott, No. 03-1194, 372 F.3d 267 (4th Cir.
2004). [2004 LR Nov]
Federal appeals court rules that the use of
civilians to assist police officers in executing a search warrant did not
violate the Fourth Amendment, even though a "better practice" would
have been to have the magistrate issuing the warrant explicitly authorize their
assistance. Officer acted reasonably in asking company security officer and supervisor
to assist him in searching for computer chips, equipment, and other allegedly
stolen material that he believed he did not have the necessary technical
expertise to identify himself. Bellville v. Town of Northboro, #03-1510, 375
F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
Search warrant for a journalist's home, obtained
in order to find videos and three still photographs concerning the terrorist
bombing nine years earlier of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, was overbroad
in violation of the Fourth Amendment, since it authorized the seizure of
"virtually every" piece of computer equipment, every computer file or
document, and other things in the home which could not contain the photographs
or videos sought, including letters. Additionally, the warrant was not
supported by probable cause because the information on which it was based was
"stale," consisting of statements by a third party who told law
enforcement officers that he had seen the photos and video six years before,
and at a location other than the journalist's home. The journalist was not
accused of any crime and had stated, before the warrant issued, that the
material in question had been turned over by him to Congress. Journalist was
entitled to summary judgment on his Fourth Amendment claim that the officers
lacked probable cause to search his home, and the officers who obtained the
warrant were not entitled to qualified immunity. Arkansas Chronicle v. Easley,
321 F. Supp. 2d 776 (E.D. Va. 2004). [N/R]
Students whose homes were searched and who were
arrested for allegedly plotting an armed attack on their school failed to show
that information allegedly intentionally omitted from affidavit in support of
search warrant, had it been included, would have negated the existence of
probable cause for the searches. The information which was allegedly omitted
was not material. Additionally, the fact that an informant whose statements
were relied on had prior juvenile convictions and had used drugs while with the
five high school students who allegedly plotted the armed attack did not render
the information he provided unreliable. Smith v. Barber, 316 F. Supp. 2d 992
(D. Kan. 2004). [N/R]
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
for going beyond the scope of a search warrant by searching a mother and her
ten-year-old daughter while executing a warrant for narcotics at their home.
Doe v. Groody, #02-4532, 361 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Jun]
U.S. Supreme Court finds that a search warrant
which failed to describe the items to be seized during the search of a Montana
ranch was "presumptively invalid," and that a federal agent who
applied for the warrant and then led the raid executing it was not entitled to
qualified immunity from liability, as the requirement in the Fourth Amendment
that a warrant describe with particularity the "persons or things to be
seized" is clearly stated. Groh v. Ramirez, #02-811, 124 S. Ct. 1284
(2004). [2004 LR May]
Police officers did not act in an unreasonable
manner by continuing to search apartment after they allegedly realized that the
apartment's inclusion in the search warrant might have been in error and that
the suspect who was the target of the search possibly did not live there.
Officers could reasonably believe that the warrant still gave them authority to
conduct the search, since it was issued based on a belief that the targeted
suspect controlled the apartment. Duarte v. Robards, No. 02-56563, 86 Fed.
Appx. 270 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Warrants for the search of a residence were not
supported by probable cause when the affidavit provided no basis to support the
belief that evidence of crime would be found there and broadly sought
"every conceivable kind of document" relating to the residents'
personal and business financial activities. Affidavit submitted was used to
obtain warrants for a total of 16 locations, with only the particular location
or person to be searched altered in the last section. Officers were not
entitled to qualified immunity for conducting search, as no reasonable officer
would have believed that the affidavit provided probable cause. Officers who
were not involved in the search, however, but were present, were entitled to
qualified immunity in detaining a resident during the execution of the warrant,
since they could have reasonably believed that their actions were lawful.
Williams v. County of Santa Barbara, 272 F. Supp. 2d 995 (C.D.Cal. 2003). [N/R]
Search warrant for search of home was valid, even
if it did not have the magistrate's signature on it. The Fourth Amendment also
did not require that the warrant name the person from whom the things sought
would be seized, when it did name the place to be searched and what was being
searched for. Sadlowski v. Benoit, No. 02-1365, 62 Fed. Appx. 3 (1st Cir. 2003).
[N/R]
Federal agents did not violate the Fourth
Amendment by conducting a search of a warehouse for machineguns under a warrant
in which the description of the guns to be found and seized was contained in an
affidavit which the court had ordered sealed. Agents left the warehouse owner a
copy of the warrant, but not the affidavit, but did furnish a list of the guns
seized, and the guns seized did not go beyond the scope of the description in
the affidavit. Additionally, even if this action were found to violate the
Fourth Amendment, the agents were entitled to qualified immunity under the
circumstances because they could reasonably believe that the warrant, issued by
the magistrate who ordered the affidavit sealed, was valid. Baranski v. Fifteen
Unknown Agents of ATF, No. 3:01CV-398-H, 252 F. Supp. 2d 401 (W.D. Ky. 2003).
[N/R]
Officer was not required to express his concern
to a judge issuing a search warrant for the search of a home in a drug activity
investigation when there was no evidence that any doubts he had about the
informant's information were serious. Failure to acknowledge, in affidavit for
the warrant, that the informant had given different numbers regarding the
amount of cocaine he allegedly distributed for the suspect did not eliminate
probable cause for the warrant. Molina Ex Rel. Molina v. Cooper, #02-1995, 325
F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Jul]
There was probable cause for a warrant to search
a nursing student's residence for evidence of dispensing drugs, including a
confidential informant procuring drugs from the suspect during a "sting
operation," so that officers' alleged withholding of exculpatory evidence
from search warrant affidavit did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights.
DeFelice v. Ingrassia, 210 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D. Conn. 2002).[N/R]
An officer’s failure to disclose in a
search warrant application the presence of “For Sale” and “Sold” signs on the
target property constituted a material omission. Although the signs on their
own may not have established dispositively that the house belonged to new
owners, they would have “put a reasonable magistrate on notice that a change in
occupancy would be occurring in the near future.” Liston v. County of
Riverside, 120 F.3d 965. (9th Cir. 1997).
307:111 Officer was not
entitled to qualified immunity defense in lawsuit brought over arrest caused by
search warrant when his affidavit for warrant was "totally devoid" of
factual assertions which were sufficient to provide probable cause. Bauder v.
Gentile, 697 So.2d 1222 (Fla. App. 1997).
280:62 Officer who made false statements in
affidavit for search warrant was not entitled to qualified immunity from
liability when affidavit, absent false statements, would not have provided
probable cause for issuance of warrant; intergovernmental narcotics enforcement
task force could not be sued under federal civil rights statute when it was an
intergovernmental association rather than separate legal entity Hervey v.
Estes, 65 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 1995).