Civil Liability
of Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel

     Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

Search and Seizure: Home/Business

     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: 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: Search Incident to Arrest – Drug Dealers, 2011 (4) AELE Mo. L. J. 401.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Entry into a Residence as Exigent Circumstances, 2012 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 401.

     Two deputies, during a warrantless raid on a house, shot a homeless couple living in a shack in the backyard, including a man holding a BB gun. A federal appeals court upheld a determination that the entry into the shack constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The shack was in the curtilage adjacent to the home. The entry violated the Fourth Amendment as the deputies could not show consent, exigent circumstances, or a lawful protective sweep. The deputies entry into the shack also violated the knock and announce rule, but the law on that subject in these circumstances was not clearly established in 2010, so the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on that claim, with an award of nominal damages on that claim overturned. Going forward, the court stated, officers must knock and announce their presence when they know or should reasonably know that an area within the curtilage of a home is a separate residence from the main house. While the shooting was not found to be excessive force, an award of damages was upheld under the provocation doctrine. When "an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation, he may be held liable for his otherwise defensive use of deadly force." The appeals court upheld an award of $4 million for the shooting and $1 in nominal damages for the unlawful search. Mendez v. County of Los Angeles, #13-56686, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 3847 2016 WL 805719 (8th Cir.).
      35 armed federal and state agents carried out a search of a water bottling facility as part of an IRS and Small Business Administration investigation of the business and its alleged fraud in connection with an application for a disaster relief loan. A federal appeals court found that neither the number of agents nor their possession of weapons made the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The detention of employees during the execution of the search warrant was reasonable. The detention prevented employees from fleeing if incriminating evidence was found and ensured that they were available to assist in the search, such as by opening locked file cabinets without force. The mere presence of armed officers did not constitute excessive force. Mountain Pure v. Roberts, #15-1656, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 3290 (8th 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.).
     A man was arrested in his girlfriend's apartment nine days after he committed a home robbery. He was convicted of various criminal charges and sentenced to 40 years in prison, but sued sheriff's deputies, claiming that their arrest of him violated the Fourth Amendment. The fact that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the plaintiff was all that the detectives needed to be justified in making the arrest, even though they didn't know about the existence of the warrant, a federal appeals court held. Factual issues about whether the girlfriend consented to the detectives entry into the apartment or merely did not object were irrelevant when they did not enter until they saw the plaintiff and therefore knew that they had found their robbery suspect. Cook v. O'Neill, #14-1641, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16838 (7th Cir.).
     A trial court erred in dismissing, on qualified immunity grounds, claims that agents of the Puerto Rico Treasury Department violated the Fourth Amendment in seizing, without a warrant, their "adult entertainment machines" (arcade like game machines sometimes allegedly unlawfully used as gambling devices) from various business locations. The trial court failed to address the necessary issues of whether a regulatory regime for the machines provided an acceptable substitute for a warrant, or the permissible scope of the search. The plaintiff's waived, however, a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim as to denial of a pre-seizure hearing as they failed to provide a comparison of the benefit of such a hearing, involving the probability of a mistaken deprivation and the property's value, to the cost of such a hearing or show that a post-seizure hearing was inadequate. Rivera-Corraliza v. Puig-Morales, #13-2138, 794 F.3d 208 (1st Cir. 2015).
     A man consumed several alcoholic drinks and then made several "erratic" calls to 911 complaining about someone with a gun at a nearby bar, and used various obscenities to the dispatcher, getting into a heated exchange. When officers arrived at his residence, he locked his door and retreated upon seeing them. They feared that someone inside might need help, so they broke down the door and entered. They found the man hiding under a sheet in his dark basement. What followed was disputed. The man claimed that he did not realize that the officers were police and feared that they were members of a motorcycle gang breaking into his house. When officers pulled the sheet off his head, the man claimed that he did not resist, but merely put his hands up and legs out, saying "You got me." An officer fired his Taser in the dart mode into the man's chest. He claimed he was given no warning or opportunity to give himself up for handcuffing. The officers claimed that the man was in a crouching position and would not comply with orders to present his hands for handcuffing, and that warning was given before the Taser was used. The man was also allegedly seen reaching towards his waistband. The Taser was activated again in the dart mode and then in the stun mode twice as the man allegedly continued to fail to comply with orders, after which the man was handcuffed. The officer who used the Taser testified that he feared that the noncompliant man might have had a gun. A federal appeals court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on a warrantless entry claim because it was not clearly established that no exigent circumstance existed when the officers entered a residence in response to multiple erratic 911 calls from there and when they believed that someone inside may have threatened the use of a gun. But the man could go forward with his excessive force claim because it was disputed whether he resisted or not and whether he was given an opportunity to comply with commands before, and while, the Taser was being used on him. The appeals court further ruled that summary judgment was inappropriate at this time as to municipal liability claims and state law excessive force claims. On the municipal liability claim, the trial court had rejected it because it also rejected the excessive force claim against the officers. As the appeals court reinstated that claim, the trial court needed to consider the issue of whether that use of force occurred pursuant to some official policy or custom. Gradisher v. City of Akron, #14-3973, 2015 Fed. App. 0160P, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 12814 (6th Cir.).
     Two female officers were working off-duty as secondary employment, patrolling an apartment complex. They noticed that the door to a 67-year-old man's apartment was open, and observed him sitting on his couch, leaning on his cane. They attempted to start a conversation with him, and he told them he did not want any attention or help. One of the officers thought the man was being "mouthy," and wanted to keep him from shutting his door. When both officers stepped inside the apartment, the man approached and a fight ensued when one of them allegedly pushed him and he pushed back. The officers allegedly repeatedly struck the man and knocked off his glasses. He repeatedly told them to get out of his residence. One of the officers, who had exited to call for backup, reached inside to pull the other officer out. The man refused to obey an instruction to lie down, and he was allegedly getting his cane. One of the officers then fired two shots into the apartment, killing the man. It was not clear whether the man was holding his cane when he was shot. A federal appeals court held that neither officer was entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful entry claims, and that the officer who fired the shots was not entitled to qualified immunity on on excessive use of lethal force claim, but that both officers were entitled to qualified immunity on claims concerning the use of non-lethal force which caused minimal injury. Taking the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, it could not be said that the officers had any basis for an unconsented warrantless entry into the apartment, despite the officers' argument that they thought the man might have needed assistance, or that there was any legal basis to shoot and kill the man, A reasonable jury could find that the officer used deadly force against a person who did not pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury or death. The appeals court had to assume, for purposes of its decision, that the decedent was not swinging his cane at the officers when he was shot. Ellison v. Lesher, #13-3371, 788 F.3d 758 (8th Cir. 2015).
     Police learned of Internet threats against them coming from an IP address located at the home of a 68-year-old African-American woman and her two daughters. The Internet wifi network there was unsecured. Before searching the woman's home, officers observed, two doors away, a man who had previously been convicted of intimidating an officer. Two of the officers believed that he was the likeliest source of the threats. Some officers, however, mistakenly believed that another man made the threats, but surveillance revealed no male present at the woman's house. Despite this, an 11-man all white SWAT team in body armor, accompanied by a news crew, knocked on the door of the house and, without waiting for a response, broke open the door and a window, tossing in two "flash-bang" grenades. The officers then rushed into the house, conducted a search that found no evidence of any crime, and handcuffed the women, leading them outside. The male neighbor was subsequently convicted of using the woman's network to make the threats. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of summary judgment to the defendant officers in an excessive force lawsuit. The court found that the officers acted unreasonably and "precipitately" by using the flash-bangs in the house without a "minimally responsible" investigation of the threats. Milan v. Bolin, #15-1207, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 13387 (7th Cir.).
     Hotel owners and a lodging association challenged the constitutionality of a Los Angeles Municipal Code section requiring hotel operators to keep certain information about hotel guests on the premises for 90 days and make it available to any officer. It punished as a misdemeanor failure to make the records available. Upholding a federal appeals court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Code section was facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment as it failed to give the hotel operators an opportunity for pre-compliance review, such as the issuance of a warrant or issuance of an administrative subpoena. The Court found that hotels were not a closely regulated industry lacking a reasonable expectation of privacy, that warrantless inspections were not necessary to further the regulatory scheme, and that there was insufficient constraint on the discretion of officers to decide which hotels to search under what circumstances. City of Los Angeles v. Patel, #13-1175, 2015 U.S. Lexis 4065.
     A woman living in a group home for the mentally ill started to act erratically and threatened to kill her social worker. Two officers were sent to the home to escort her to a facility for temporary evaluation and treatment. When they entered her room, she grabbed a knife, threatening to kill them. They retreated and closed the door, but later reentered, concerned about what was going on within the room, and allegedly without considering if they could accommodate her disability. She again confronted them with the knife, and after pepper spray failed to subdue her, they shot her multiple times. She sued the city for alleged disability discrimination in arresting her without accommodating her disability, and the two officers for allegedly violating her Fourth Amendment rights. A federal appeals court ruled that the Americans with Disabilities Act applied and that the issue of whether the plaintiff's disability should have been accommodated should be decided by a jury. It also held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, since it was clearly established that, in the absence of a need for immediate entry, officers cannot forcibly enter the home of an armed, mentally ill person who has been acting irrationally and threatened everyone who entered.  The U.S. Supreme Court granted review, but dismissed its review of the issue of whether the ADA "requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody" as "improvidently granted." A review of this issue was based on the assumption that the city would argue that the ADA does not apply when officers face an armed and dangerous person. Instead, the city argued that the plaintiff was not "qualified" for an accommodation because she posed a direct threat to others, a threat which could not "be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services." Since the court below had not addressed the issues in that context, review by the U.S. Supreme Court was not proper. The Court also noted that the parties in the case had also failed to address the related question of whether a public entity such as the defendant city could be vicariously liable for damages under Title II of the ADA for an arrest made by its officers. The Court did hold, however, that the two individual defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims. They did not violate the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights when they opened her door the first time, and could, without a doubt, also have opened her door the second time if she had not been disabled. Their use of force in response to her threats with the knife was reasonable. So the only remaining question was whether they violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they opened her door the second time rather than attempting to accommodate her disability. As there was no clearly established law on that issue, they were entitled to qualified immunity. City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, #13-1412, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 2015 U.S. Lexis 3200.
     Officers responding to a noise complaint entered an apartment and fired a Taser in the dart mode at a male resident, activating it for a total of 26 seconds--one five second application and a second 21 second activation. The man started to foam at the mouth, stopped breathing, and went into cardiac arrest. He remained hospitalized for two weeks and suffered an anoxic brain injury due to lack of oxygen, greatly impairing his mental functioning. Bth he ad his wife were initially charged with disorderly conduct, but those charges were dropped. The officers were properly denied summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity as there were disputed issues of material fact as to whether a warrantless entry was in fact justified by the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement--which requires both the potential for injury to the officers or others and the need for swift action. Additionally, as to the excessive force claim, a jury could reasonably determine that the alleged disorderly conduct was not a serious crime for purposes of deciding whether excessive force was used in effecting an arrest for that crime, that the uninterrupted 21 second second application of the Taser was "atypically long," and that it was reasonable to hold the officer accountable for taking note of changes in the man's physical condition over the total 26 second time that the Taser was used. The man had a clearly established constitutional right not to have the Taser used on him when he was, as he claimed, offering at most passive resistence to the officer, as well as not to have the Taser gratuitously used after he ceased all resistance. Goodwin v. City of Painesville, #14-3120, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 4417, 2015 Fed. App. 48P (6th Cir.). In a prior decision in the case, a federal trial court barred the defense from presenting a police chief's expert witness report on the medical aspects of a Taser used in dart mode. The expert witness admitted that he could not offer relevant opinions on the medical impact of the Taser based on scientific evidence beyond what the jurors could learn from available medical and scientific literature. The chief was presented as an expert in police procedures "and not as an expert in the medical and technical effects of Tasers." He could not properly present "medical conclusions regarding the physical effects of Taser use outside of his purported, experientially based, expertise." Nall v. City of Painesville, #1:10 CV 02883, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 66123, 2012 WL 1658623 (N.D.Ohio).
     After a patrol officer engaged in a high speed chase with a member of a family, he allegedly entered the family's home without knocking and announcing his presence and impounded the family's ATV. Denial of summary judgment to the officer for the no-knock entry was upheld when it was disputed whether a reasonable officer should have taken into consideration at 2 a.m., that the other occupants of the home were awake and aware of his authority and purpose. Claims related to the seizure of the ATV were rejected as Texas state law allowed the officer to seize it under the circumstances as he was lawfully on the premises and it had just been used as an instrumentality of a crime.
Trent v. Wade, #13-10960, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 391 (5th Cir.).
     A tax assessor's field deputy entered a property surrounding a home to gather data and reported finding marijuana. Officers then entered the curtilage of the home, specifically a walk-out basement patio area attached to the home and searched the area for marijuana. The unreasonable search claims should not be dismissed as the knock-and-talk exception to the warrant requirement did not apply. The officers allegedly saw a plaintiff only after they entered the curtilage. If the facts were as alleged, the defendants violated clearly established law. Covey v. Assessor of Ohio County, #13-1227, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 1113 (4th Cir.).
     A 22-year-old an was in his apartment at night with two friends when police knocked on the door, yelled "police, search warrant," and started to force open the front door. The man ran upstairs to his bedroom, grabbed an unloaded shotgun and pointed it at the officers as they followed him up the stairs. An officer shot him dead. The man's estate, in a lawsuit claiming that the search was conducted in an unreasonable manner, argued that there was no need to conduct it after dark because the officers were only searching for loot of "modest value." It was also argued that the man, when looking out the front window after the knocking, had seen one of the officers holding an automatic rifle, dressed in a dark hoodie, having long hair, earrings, a goatee, and sideburns, and yelled something like "we are getting robbed again" before fleeing upstairs to get the shotgun. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the shooting officer, agreeing that even if he may have exceeded proper constitutional bounds in leading the search, given his undercover appearance, he was still entitled to qualified immunity. There was insufficient evidence to support claims against the county when the plaintiff's lawyer failed to authenticate an expert witness report that could not be admitted into evidence absent a signed affidavit.
Estate of Brown v. Thomas, #14-1867, 771 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2014).
     The plaintiffs claimed that an officer illegally entered the backyard of their property, going onto their deck without a search warramt. A federal appeals court ruled that these actions violated the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law, as the "knock and talk" exception to the warrant requirement mandates that officers begin such encounters at the front door, where there is an implied invitation to go. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the appeals court's determination that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. A government official sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless they violated a statutory or constitutional right that was "clearly established" at the time of the alleged conduct. There was no clearly established precedent at the time that the "knock and talk" exception to the warrant requirement had to begin at the front door. Carroll v. Carman, #14-212, 135 S. Ct. 348, 190 L. Ed. 2d 311, 2014 U.S. Lexis 7430.
     Occupants of a home sued two officers and a city for a warrantless entry into the home's yard to investigate a tip that two guns were in an abandoned vehicle on the property, in the course of which one of the officers shot and killed the family dog. A federal appeals court found that the officers had no warrant, no probable cause plus exigent circumstances, and had not offered any other basis that would make their entry lawful. The officers therefore violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights and were not entitled to qualified immunity as their actions, under the undisputed facts, would not have been objectively reasonable. Harris v. O’Hare, #12-4350, 770 F.3d 224 (2nd Cir. 2014).
     A deputy sheriff shot and killed a man in his home, entering without a warrant while responding to a 911 call that the man was sitting in his truck threatening to commit suicide. He had been holding a loaded gun to his head. It was not a Fourth Amendment violation to enter the home, as the deputy had an objectively reasonable belief that the decedent would imminently injure himself. The deputy was entitled to qualified immunity on excessive force claims, since the decedent was arrmed and moving toward him. The deputy fired believing it necessary to protect himself and others. Claims against the sheriff were also rejected, as was a claim to collect accidental death benefits under a life insirance policy, as there was ample evidence that the death was not accidental. Rice v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co, #13-30639, 770 F.3d 1122 (5th Cir. 2014).
    An unannounced warrantless inspection of a barbershop was conducted by officers from a county sheriff's office and employees of a state licensing agency for the purpose of finding violations of licensing laws. These actions went beyond a valid administrative inspection and constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Warrantless administrative searches, it was clearly established, have to be narrowly tailored to serve the administrative need that justifies it. In this case, officers blocked entrances and exits to parking lots so no one could leave or enter, some team members entered with guns drawn, some occupants were handcuffed, etc. The "inspection" was conducted for approximately an hour as though it were a criminal raid, even though there was no indication that there was any threat to safety. Additionally, all barbers were properly licensed and the business was complying with all safety and sanitation rules. The manner in which the "supposed inspection" was conducted "was unreasonable from its inception." Berry v. Leslie, #13-14092 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17782, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 438 (11th Cir.).
     A private non-profit corporation that contracted with a city to provide animal welfare services received complaints about conditions at a local pet store. Employees of the company found, during a visit to the store, that the animals there lacked water and that the air conditioning was not working. They removed animals and business records from the store and revoked the store's permit to be a pet dealer. The store sued the city, the company, and its employees (in both their individual and official capacities), claiming that the warrantless seizures violated the Fourth Amendment and that removing the animals and revoking the store's permit without a prior hearing violated procedural due process. A federal appeals court held that one employee, who acted solely as a private animal-welfare officer, could not assert a qualified immunity defense to a personal capacity claim. Two other employees, however, acted both as private animal-welfare officers and also as specially commissioned city police officers. They were granted summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on the procedural due process claims, and Fourth Amendment claims regarding the seizure of the animals. One was granted summary judgment on claims regarding the seizure of the business records, while a second employee was denied summary judgment on the same claims. Qualified immunity was not available to any employees on the official capacity claims. The city had a strong interest in immediately seizing the animals to protect them from squalid and hot conditions without water, and the post-deprivation hearing was an adequate remedy, so their removal did not violate due process or violate the Fourth Amendment. The revocation of the store's permit violated due process, however, as neither a pre-deprivation or post-deprivation hearing was offered. United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, #13-5181, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 17900, 2014 Fed. App. 240P (6th Cir.).
     A woman owned a property that she operated as an animal shelter until an ASPCA investigation led to a search of that property, her firing as the county dogcatcher, and her being sentenced for animal neglect. The ASPCA investigator, although a private party, was able under state law to obtain a warrant to search the property, and it directed officers to enlist veterinarians or other persons or agencies authorized by the county prosecutor to assist in the search. Deputy sheriffs entering the property were accompanied by 40-50 undeputized animal rights volunteers who actually carried out the search, with the deputies just there to keep the peace. A federal appeals court upheld an award of damages in a lawsuit claiming unreasonable search and negligence in failing to adequately train or supervise the amateur searchers, resulting in needless property damage. The "incompetence of the amateur searchers is apparent from the reports of the deputy sheriffs," the court noted. Petkus v. Richland County, #13-3700, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 16054 (7th Cir.).
     An officer who had followed a man's car to his home asked him to "come here" just as he entered his parents' home, but did not tell him he was under arrest. Five additional officers arrived and started pounding on the door of the family home, and tried to force their way in when a man opened the door. When the door was shut on them, they shattered a window on the door with the butt of a shotgun, and then stuck a Taser through the window, blindly firing it in the dart mode into the home and striking the son twice. Officers then broke through the door, used the Taser on the son again because he continued to struggle, and then allegedly dragged him outside to the driveway, beat him with batons, kicked his head, used a Taser in the stun mode on him, and called him a "black nigger," after which they placed him in handcuffs, placing him under arrest. Because the son pled guilty to resisting arrest and willfully fleeing an officer, his claims of excessive force and unlawful entry were barred. The trial court, however, improperly dismissed the parents' claims for illegal entry into their home and state law intentional infliction of emotional distress, while the appeals court upheld the dismissal of the parents' assault claims for lack of evidence. Hayward v. Cleveland Clinic Found., #13-3132, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 13802, 2014 Fed. App. 0157P (6th 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 mistook a Hispanic teenage boy and his friends, who were in his own home, for two white male intruders being sought. They pointed guns at them, entered the home without a warrant, and shot and killed the family's pet dog. An excessive force claim could go forward, as the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, indicated that they fully complied with the officers' orders at all times. An unlawful entry claim could also go forward as the officers did not have probable cause in the absence of any information to suggest that the boys were illegally on the premises, and the lack of an objective basis for applying an emergency aid exception, as well as disputed issues of fact as to whether any violence was imminent. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The shooting of the dog did not amount to a deprivation of a familial relationship.
Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dep't., #12-15654, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 12395 (9th Cir.).
     When an officer went directly through the back of the plaintiffs' property in entering without a warrant to search for a suspect, rather than beginning his visit at their front door, the "knock and talk" exception to the warrant requirement was inapplicable. The plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their unlawful entry claim as to the officer's entry into the property's curtilage. The jury properly, however, returned a verdict in favor of the officer on a claim that he unlawfully seized one of the plaintiffs, as there was evidence from which they could rationally believe that the officer had reasonable suspicion allowing him to momentarily question the man to determine his identity and justifiably grabbed his arm to accomplish the stop. Carman v. Carroll, #13-2371, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 9039 (3rd 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.).
     A deputy pulled a female motorist over for an expired vehicle registration sticker, and the date on the sticker was different than that in the Secretary of State's records, so she was let go. The deputy was later notified that the sticker was stolen, a felony offense, and went to the woman's home to arrest her, being met there by a second deputy. The woman's boyfriend, who owned the house, answered the door and refused to let the deputies enter without a warrant. The deputies said that they smelled an odor of burning marijuana from inside the home, and they attempted to enter, which the boyfriend resisted. He was found with a half-burnt marijuana joint and was charged with resisting or obstructing an officer, a charge that was later dismissed. The trial court held that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest and excessive force claims, as there had been no exigency justifying a warrantless entry, which violated a clearly established right. A federal appeals court reversed, stating that there was "fractured" caselaw on whether detecting the smell of marijuana justified a warrantless entry, so that it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that a warrantless entry was not justified. White v. Stanley, #13-2131, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 4467 (7th Cir.).
     Six Muslim individuals and a number of Muslim-owned businesses, mosques, and a student organization claimed that the New York City Police Department's surveillance of the Muslim community in New Jersey following the attacks of September 11, 2001 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by targeting Muslims solely on the basis of their religion. The federal trial court dismissed the lawsuit. “The more likely explanation for the surveillance was a desire to locate budding terrorist conspiracies. The most obvious reason for so concluding is that surveillance of the Muslim community began just after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The police could not have monitored New Jersey for Muslim terrorist activities without monitoring the Muslim community itself.” The court also stated that, “Nowhere in the complaint do plaintiffs allege that they suffered harm prior to the unauthorized release of the documents by the Associated Press. This confirms that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries flow from the Associated Press’s unauthorized disclosure of the documents. The harms are not ‘fairly traceable’ to any act of surveillance.” An appeal in the case is expected. Hassan v. City of New York, #2-12-3401, 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20887 (D.N.J.).
     A woman suffering from a mental illness and resisting officers' attempts to take her to a mental health facility claimed that the officers violated her rights by entering her residence without a warrant and shooting her five or six times when she threatened them with a knife. The officers were justified in the initial entry into the home under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement because they had an objectively reasonable belief that she was in need of assistance. There were, however, triable issues of fact as to whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment in forcing a second entry and thereby allegedly provoking a near fatal confrontation, leading to an unnecessary use of deadly force that could have been avoided. The appeals court also held that federal disability discrimination statutes apply to arrests, and that there was a triable issue as to whether the officers failed to reasonably accommodate her disability when they forced their way into her room, arguably failing to take her mental illness into account or to utilize generally accepted law enforcement practices for peacefully resolving such a confrontation with a mentally ill person.  Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, #11-16401, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 3321 (9th 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.).
     Two officers responded to a call concerning a disturbance involving a person armed with a baseball bat in a neighborhood known for gang violence. A man was seen running towards a residence and ignored an order to halt. He did not appear to be holding a bat. He entered the gate of a six foot fence enclosing his front yard. The officer believable that the man had committed a jailable misdemeanor by disobeying the order to stop, and also feared for his safety. He kicked open the gate. A woman was behind the gate and was struck and injured by it. A federal appeals court found that the warrantless entry was unconstitutional as the woman had the same expectation of privacy in the curtilage of her home as in the residence itself, the pursued man had only committed, at most, a minor offense, and there was no immediate danger. The appeals court also found that the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. Reversing, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that courts throughout the country were divided as to whether an officer who has probably cause to arrest a fleeing misdemeanant can enter a home without a warrant in hot pursuit. Without deciding whether or not the warrantless entry was constitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that while it was possible that the officer was mistaken in thinking that his actions were justified, he was not "plainly incompetent," and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Stanton v. Sims, #12-1217, 2013 U.S. Lexis 7773.
     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.).
     Residents of a Detroit home claimed that masked law enforcement agents, dressed in black, with their guns drawn, broke into the residence, assaulting and terrorizing them. They were said to be part of a multi-agency anti-drug trafficking effort in a specific area. When asked to identify themselves, the masked men refused to do so, only saying that they were "Team 1," according to the plaintiffs. In a lawsuit for unlawful search and seizure, summary judgment was entered in favor of state and local officials, and judgment as a matter of law was entered for the defendant federal agents. The ruling was upheld as to the state and local defendants, as there was undisputed testimony that they only provided perimeter security and were not part of the entry team. The appeals court reversed as to the federal agents, however, as there were genuine factual issues about their personal involvement in the raid and their conduct in the house. The court found that the circumstances of the raid, including the intentional identity concealment and the assertion of an "I wasn't there" defense justified shifting the burden onto the federal agents to prove their lack of personal involvement. Burley v. Gagacki, #12-1820, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 18577, 2013 Fed App. 263P (6th Cir.).
     A homeowner sought $9,462 in compensatory damages that he claimed was needed to refurnish his home after an unreasonable execution of a search warrant by four officers. He also sought damages for emotional distress and punitive damages. A jury found for the plaintiff against only one officer and awarded only $100. He then sought an award of $116,435 in attorneys' fees as a prevailing party for 450 hours of work. A federal appeals court upheld a denial of attorneys' fees, finding that the jury award on just one of eight claims made was nominal and trivial and did not provide any public benefit. Aponte v. City of Chicago, #12-3099, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 18111 (7th Cir.).
     A town has reached an $11.6 million settlement with a family whose home was raided without a search warrant by officers in 2003, with officers allegedly arresting five family members without probably cause and beating them up. No convictions were obtained on any of the charges. The plaintiffs claimed that one family member, a boy who was 17 years old at the time of the incident, subsequently developed a mental illness as a result of the beating and an alleged threat by one officer to kill him if he didn't leave town. They claimed that he now requires 24 hours a day supervision. Ramos v. Cicero, #1:04-cv-02502, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill.).
     A bankruptcy court ordered a debtor's home vacated and federal Marshals were authorized to remove the debtor's son who was living there from the residence. He was patted down, removed, the house was searched, and he was not allowed to reenter to claim his belongings. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the son's lawsuit against federal employees as he did not properly plead his case for violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Claims against a city and its police officers in their official capacities were properly dismissed. Even if the bankruptcy court's order had been invalid, the plaintiff had not shown any direct link between a city policy or custom and the alleged violation of his rights. Alexander v. Hedback, #12-2834, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 13302 (8th Cir.).
     A woman claimed that county employees conspired with the father of her child, a sheriff's deputy, to obtain an invalid warrant lacking probable cause to search her house, to use excessive force during the execution of that warrant, and then to arrest her without probable cause. The unlawful search and false arrest claims were rejected, as there was probable cause to search her home and arrest her, based on allegations that she had fraudulently used the deputy's personal credit card to make purchases. However, as there was evidence that she did not pose a threat to officer safety and was not resisting arrest, her excessive force and conspiracy claims survived and should be decided by a jury. She claimed that the defendants pointed weapons at her, grabbed her by the arms and shoulders, and pushed her in the back down a hallway, before handcuffing her in an extremely tight manner. Cameron v. Craig, #11-55927, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 7563 (9th Cir.).
     A man accused by a male teenager of kidnapping and raping him sued investigating police. He claimed that they barged into his hotel room without consent or a search warrant and seized his wallet and other items. He also claimed that they did this after illegally obtaining his video rental records from a video store in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2710 in an attempt to collaborate the teenager's story that he had spent some time in the hotel room watching specific videos. Criminal charges against the man are currently pending in state court. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court improperly dismissed the unlawful search and privacy claims. The privacy claims were against the video store. The appeals court noted that, while constitutional claims might be litigated during the criminal trial, money damages were not available in that proceeding. The trial court should have stayed the proceeding rather than dismissed the case, because otherwise his claims might be time barred by the time the prosecution was concluded. Gakuba v. O'Brien, #12-3345, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 5866 (7th Cir.).
     The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld a decision of the Florida Supreme Court suppressing evidence of marijuana plants and drug trafficking found in a residence during a search conducted with a search warrant. The search warrant was obtained on the basis of the fact that a drug-sniffing dog that police brought onto the front porch of the defendant's home alerted there. While the police officers could, without a warrant, approach the home and knock on the door, since any private citizen could do that, their bringing of a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in the hopes of discovering incriminating evidence was a Fourth Amendment search without probable cause, as there was no customary invitation to bring such a dog onto the porch, which was part of the home's curtilage, entitled to as much protection from search as the home itself. While this was a criminal case, the same principles would apply in a civil rights lawsuit. Florida v. Jardines, #11-564, 2013 U.S. Lexis 2542.
     Federal immigration authorities entered into a $1 million settlement agreement with 22 Latinos whose rights were allegedly violated when agents entered private homes in early morning raids without search warrants looking for immigration law violations. The plaintiffs included U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and some whose immigration status was in dispute. The settlement also requires the adoption of a new policy requiring that agents not enter private homes without search warrants. The settlement also mandates expanded use of Spanish speaking agents who can communicate in that language with occupants of a residence when necessary, and bars the use of evidence obtained in the raids in immigration proceedings. Aguilar v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, #07-Civ.-8224, U.S. Dist. Ct. (S.D.N.Y. April 4, 2013).
     A police officer was sued on a motorist's claim that he violated her Fourth Amendment rights by reading a piece of her mail while he searched her car with her consent following a traffic stop. It violates a person's rights when an officer reads their private papers, the text of which was not in plain view, while conducting a search based on generalized consent to search an area in which the letter was found. The officer was entitled to qualified immunity, however, as this right was not yet clearly established at the time. Winfield v. Trottier, #11-4404, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4635 (2nd Cir.).
     Officers who entered a residence in response to a report of domestic violence attempted to arrest a man suffering from bipolar disorder who was fighting with his brother. During the arrest, the man initially resisted and was armed with a baseball bat. An officer used a Taser three times in the dart mode after he was ordered to drop the bat. The second use of the Taser caused him to drop the bat, and the third caused him to fall to the ground. Two officers then sat on his back. The officer with the Taser then activated it in the dart mode a fourth time, and then used the Taser in the stun mode against the arrestee six more times. After the tenth use of the Taser, the arrestee appeared to be unconscious, went into cardiac arrest and died. Some officers claimed that the arrestee was continuing to resist efforts to put him in handcuffs during the last seven deployments of the Taser, that he was able to regain possession of the bat, and that he tried to bite officers when he again lost possession of the bat. One officer, however, testified in her deposition that the arrestee had stopped resisting, that officers were then sitting on his upper, lower, and middle body, and that he was rigid and kept his hand underneath his body. Rejecting the claim of the officer who deployed the Taser for summary judgment, the court stated that, "[i]t is an excessive and unreasonable use of force for a police officer repeatedly to administer electrical shocks with a Taser on an individual who no longer is armed, has been brought to the ground, has been restrained physically by several other officers, and no longer is resisting arrest." Since officers using "unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force" do not act in an objectively reasonable manner, qualified immunity was not available as a defense for the last seven uses of the Taser. Qualified immunity was granted, however, for the first three uses of the Taser and for the warrantless entry into the residence, which was supported by probable cause. Meyers v. Baltimore County, #11-2191, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 2282, 2013 WL 388125 (4th Circuit).
     A homeowner sued an officer for his warrantless entry into her front yard. She claimed to have suffered injuries when he kicked down the yard's front gate to enter in pursuit of a fleeing suspect who had, at most, committed a misdemeanor offense of disobeying an officer's lawful order to halt. Overturning qualified immunity for the officer, the appeals court ruled that a reasonable officer should have known that his warrantless entry into the curtilage of the home under these circumstances amounted to an unconstitutional search not justified by exigent circumstances or the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. Sims v. Stanton, #11-55401, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24803 (9th Cir.).
     Police officers executed search warrants for narcotics on two homes based on information from a confidential informant and their own investigation. Rejecting excessive force claims, the appeals court found that the officers drawing their guns and using handcuffs on the occupants of the homes during the searches could be justified by the officers' reasonable concern for their safety, and could have believed that the amount of force used was legal given the dangers involved in a drug raid. The searches conducted were also reasonable and based on probable cause, given the information from the confidential informant, the evidence of controlled buys of drugs, and substances found in a garage on the premises. The residents did not have their rights violated by being detained during the search and there had been probable cause to arrest some of them. Marcilis v. Township of Redford, #11-1073,  2012 U.S. App. Lexis 18707, 2012 Fed. App. 0310P (6th 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.).
     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).
     A municipal ordinance required motel and hotel owners to establish and maintain extensive records about their guests (including names and numbers of guests, method of payment, duration of stay, license plates of guests' vehicles, etc.) and to allow police to inspect them. The motel and hotel owners could not claim that this violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The information required was about their guests, not about the business owners or operators, so they had no privacy right to assert. Further, while the records created were "papers" arguably protected by the Fourth Amendment, inspection of them by police did not amount to a seizure. Patel v. City of Los Angeles, #08-56567, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 14613 (9th Cir.).
     DEA agents who executed a search warrant at a mobile home occupied by suspected drug dealers allegedly pointed weapons at and handcuffed two adults and two children who were present. They also pushed one of the adults onto the floor. Rejecting assault and battery claims against the agents for the force used against the adults, an appeals court found that the dangerous situation of carrying out a search on premises occupied by drug traffickers justified the force used. There were genuine issues of material fact, however, as to whether the force used against the 11 and 14 year old children was reasonable. The lawsuit was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Avina v. U.S., #11-55004, 681 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2012).
     Officers allegedly detained a man at a gas station, pointing a gun at him and handcuffing him. They then drove him to his apartment where he claimed they planted a gun and some marijuana and proceeded to conduct a search. When he refused to sign a consent to the search, an officer hit him in his ribs with his fists and tried to choke him, according to the plaintiff. Qualified immunity was not available on the excessive force claim, regardless of whether the injuries suffered were minimal. No amount of force was justified for the purpose of coercing a consent to a search. Hemphill v. Hale, #11-3116, 677 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 2012)
     A state trooper compelled a female motorist, stopped for failing to dim her lights, to perform field sobriety tests. He stated that he did so because her pupils were constricted, and then placed her under arrest for DUI. Subsequently, a urine test showed that she had not been drinking, and the charges were dismissed. A federal appeals court stated that this, combined with a videotape indicating that she had performed the field sobriety tests with only minor mistakes and no real difficulty, showed that the officer may have lied about her pupils being constricted. A reasonable jury could find that there was no reasonable suspicion to conduct the field sobriety tests or place the motorist under arrest. Qualified immunity for the officer would be inappropriate. Green v. Throckmorton, #10-4487, 681 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2012).
     When protesters gathered outside a meeting of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and vandalized the lobby of the hotel where delegates were staying, a photojournalist took pictures of the mayhem. A county police officer reviewing the hotel's security tapes found out that she had been present taking pictures. Deputized as a federal marshal, he helped obtain a search warrant for her home, where it was believed her computer equipment containing the photos of the protesters would be found. During the execution of the warrant, her computer hard drive was seized. She sued the federal government, claiming that the search violated the Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000aa et seq. She sought damages for the search, although she was neither arrested nor charged. The appeals court found that a suspect exception to the Act applied to the claim because the circumstances provided probable cause to believe that she was involved with criminal activity with vandals at the hotel. The mere fact that the officer knew that she was a journalist did not destroy probable cause. Sennett v. United States, #11-1421, 667 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2012).
     A no-knock entry was made into a house with a battering ram to execute a search warrant based on a confidential informant's tip that methamphetamine was being sold from the residence. After no drugs were found during the search, the occupants sued the detective who obtained the warrant and the city for the failure to knock and announce the officers' identity and purpose before entering the home. The appeals court ruled that it was clearly established that neither safety concerns based on generalities about the dangerousness of drugs dealers nor the disposable nature of drug evidence were enough, standing alone, to justify that type of entry. The detective, therefore, was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court ruled that the city also could be held liable, based on the plaintiffs' claim that its officers customarily used no-knock entry as their default method of executing all drug-related searches, and that this was consistent with the police department's policies. Bishop v. Arcuri, #11-50010, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 4978 (5th Cir.).
     A deputy sheriff responded to a 911 call indicating concerns about the welfare of a five-year-old child in the care of a mother said to be drunk and "acting weird." The mother initially prevented the deputy from entering the house to check on the child's safety, attempting to slam the door on him. She later allegedly consents to his entry and agrees to restrain her growling dogs. He discovers that the child has a fever which is dangerously high. When he said he might call child welfare authorities if she did not summon someone better able to take care of the child, she yelled “I have a gun, I knew you were a cop out there, if I was going to answer the door and you would have come in, I would have shot ya.” The officer handcuffed her, considering this a threat. A jury rejected a claim for unlawful warrantless entry. A federal appeals court upheld this result, and the jury instructions. The court noted that a "majority of the circuits place the burden of proof on the plaintiff in a Sec. 1983 action for a warrantless arrest or search, with some of those circuits imposing the burden of production on the defendant. A minority of the circuits place the burden of proof on the defendant." This court agreed with the majority. Der v. Connolly, #11–1048, 666 F.3d 1120 (8th 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.
     Police were entitled to qualified immunity for their warrantless entry into a home based on exigent circumstances and the totality of the circumstances. They were investigating reports that a student who lived there had written a letter with a threat to "shoot up" the high school he attended. The mother and son inside initially ignored the officers' knocks on the door, and she hung up on an officer when he called on the phone. The mother and son then stepped outside, and the mother ran inside, followed by her son, and refused to let them in when they asked whether any guns were present in the home. The officers responded by following them inside, and ultimately concluded that the rumors of the threat were false. Under these circumstances, a reasonable officer could believe that he had a right under the Fourth Amendment to enter the home without a warrant when there was a "reasonable basis for concluding that there is an imminent threat of violence." Ryburn v. Huff, #11–208, 2012 U.S. Lexis 910. 2012 WL 171121.
     The operator of a mining quarry sued for unreasonable search and seizure in response to numerous warrantless state administrative inspections of its facilities carried out after anonymous information was received alleging that the mine was violating state regulations. Rejecting the plaintiff's claim, the court ruled that the inspections, while warrantless, were not "suspicionless," since inspectors are only allowed to enter a business premises when they have received complaints of an actual safety or health regulation violation. Lesueur-Richmond Slate Corporation v. Fehrer, #11-1112, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 786 (4th Cir.).
     Police responded to a 911 call concerning a schizophrenic, bipolar, and suicidal man who had stopped taking his medication and was threatening to harm his mother. The officers weren't liable for shooting and killing him when he came towards them armed with knives as they entered his locked and barricaded bedroom. They acted in reasonable self-defense, and they were entitled to qualified immunity on their warrantless entry into the bedroom based on their belief that there were exigent circumstances justifying their entry because the man constituted a threat to himself. Rockwell v. Brown, #10–11053, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 24980 (5th Cir.).
     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.).
     Armed with an arrest warrant for a drug dealer, officers from a joint federal-state task force enter a residence, believing that the suspect is within. Doing so over the owner's objection, they did not find the suspect on the premises. In a civil rights lawsuit against the federal officers, they were entitled to qualified immunity on a Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim. No Fourth Amendment violation occurs if officers enter a third party's home under the reasonable belief that the target named in the arrest warrant resides at the dwelling in question and will be present at the time of the entry." Solis-Alarcon v. United States, #09-2406,  2011 U.S. App. Lexis 23501 (1st  Cir.).
     Two undercover animal services officers visited a couple's home, where they observed some puppies that the couple advertised in a local newspaper. The couple had bred their two pet bulldogs to produce the puppies for sale. Uniformed animal service officers then knocked on the door, entering and seizing all nine of the dogs, claiming, erroneously, that the couple had violated an ordinance about breeding dogs. All dogs were taken to an animal shelter, where they had microchips placed in them, and the adult dogs were neutered. The couple was asked for over $1,000 for the return of the dogs. It turned out that the couple was not violating the ordinance, as they were not operating an unlicensed Class A kennel, as defined in the ordinance. The initial entry by the undercover officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment, as it was pursuant to the couple's newspaper ad inviting the public to come inspect the dogs for sale. The subsequent entry by the uniformed officers without a warrant, for law enforcement purposes, however, raised valid Fourth Amendment claims. The officers may have also violated procedural due process by depriving the couple of their property, the dogs and the ability to breed them, without written notice of the alleged violation on which the seizure was based. O'Neill v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, #10-5699,  2011 U.S. App. Lexis 22530 (6th 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).
     When police attempted to stop a teen motorist for driving without taillights, he fled and hid inside his parents' house two blocks away. An officer who allegedly forced his way into the home was not entitled to qualified immunity since no reasonable officer could believe that there were exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry. "The intended arrest was for a traffic misdemeanor committed by a minor, with whom the officer was well acquainted, who had fled into his family home from which there was only one exit." Mascorro v. Billings, #10-7005, 656 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2011).
     In a lawsuit claiming that there was a practice of abusive and unlawful raids of Latino homes by agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), high level supervisory personnel were entitled to qualified immunity since the plaintiffs failed to assert any plausible basis to impose liability on them for the purported abuses. Many allegations in the complaint were merely conclusory, and did not adequately set forth a theory of possible liability on the part of the supervisors, such as their knowledge of or acquiescence in unconstitutional conduct. Argueta v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, #10-1479, 643 F.3d 60 (3rd Cir. 2011).
     An elderly woman visiting her son's house accepted delivery of a package while sunning herself in the front yard. The package was a shipment of ketamine that sheriff's deputies were following, allowing a controlled delivery. When she took the package into the residence, leaving it inside unopened, and returned outside, a team of deputies arrived to execute a search warrant. One of them allegedly forced her to the ground, placing a foot on her back for ten minutes, after which she was detained inside on a couch inside for two hours. Her unlawful search and excessive force claims were both rejected. The officers had implicit authority, based on the search warrant, to temporarily detain occupants of the residence, including visitors. Croom v. Balkwill, #09-16315, 645 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2011).
     A man claimed that his wife and son conspired together to have him arrested for, among other things, illegal possession and sale of Oxycontin, knowing that he lawfully possessed the drug as prescription medication for various illnesses. During execution of an arrest warrant for domestic violence and firearms offenses, a search was conducted during which a quantity of the drug was seized. He was released from custody when the status of the drug as his legal medication was shown. There was nothing in the arrest warrant, however, which would have caused a reasonable officer to question whether the warrant was valid, Moore v. City of Desloge, #10-2095, 647 F.3d 841 (8th Cir.).
     After police knocked at an apartment door, in response to a child's 911 call reporting that someone is beating her mother, they heard screams from a woman on the roof of the building. Through a window, they saw a man running from a bedroom. Believing that a suspect was on the back porch of the building, they make a forced entry into an apartment, which turned out to be the apartment of the man's mother, and unconnected with the screams on the roof. The mother sued for illegal entry, but the officers, who reasonably believed that they were doing what they needed to do to apprehend a suspect, were not liable. The jury properly found for the defendant officers, and the trial court properly instructed the jury on the plaintiff bearing the burden of proof in the unlawful search case. Bogan v. City of Chicago, #10-2170, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 13667 (7th Cir.).
     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 federal appeals court overturned a grant of qualified immunity to a child services caseworker who entered a couple's home and removed their children to state custody. There were factual issues as to whether the caseworker recklessly or knowingly made false statements in his affidavit submitted to a court to obtain an order to enter the home. There were also issues concerning whether the caseworker was confused as to which children actually lived with the plaintiffs. Further proceedings were ordered on unlawful search and seizure claims, as well as procedural and substantive due process claims. Southerland v. City of New York, #07-4449, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 11942 (2nd Cir.).
     In an unlawful search and seizure lawsuit over officers' warrantless search of a man's home and vehicle following his arrest, officers were properly denied qualified immunity. There were genuine issues of fact as to whether the search of his home, which they characterized as a protective sweep, lasted for ten minutes or three hours, and whether they had consent to enter his home. There was also a genuine issue as to whether they had probable cause to search his vehicle, which they might not have connected to him prior to their search of his home. Asher v. McClure, #10-13751, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 8247 (Unpub. 11th 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.).
     Officers could have reasonably believed that probable cause existed to search a suspect's home without a warrant. He exited the residence without the gun he was thought to have taken inside. The officers therefore had grounds to search for the gun, which they believed was evidence of a crime. They could have also reasonably feared that someone still in the house could use the weapon against them, giving them exigent circumstances to conduct the search for their own safety. Flores v. City of Maywood, #09-55046, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17630 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
     Officers went to a house to arrest a man under three warrants for various minor offenses. Once at the house, the officers found the back door open, and no furniture inside or any other indication that anyone was living there, but did find the suspect unclothed in a bathroom. While dressing, the suspect suddenly lunged towards a second-story window, and an officer used her Taser on him. He was hit by the Taser's two probes, but continued through the window and subsequently died of his injuries. A federal appeals court rejected both unlawful entry and excessive force claims. From the appearance of the house, the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe the house was abandoned, so they had no duty to knock and announce before entering. The officer was entitled to use force such as the Taser when it appeared that the suspect was making an active attempt to evade arrest. McKenney v. Harrison, #10-1407, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6248 (8th Cir.).
     A police officer was at a woman's apartment at the time her ex-boyfriend repossessed some of his property. The woman sued the officer, among others, asserting a claim for illegal search. The officer was at the scene to maintain the peace and there was a question as to whether he took an active role in the repossession or remained neutral. At trial, the instructions to the jury, which ruled for the officer, improperly framed the question of whether the officer acted under color of state law as limited to the issue of whether or not he ordered the door to the residence to be opened, when the proper legal standard was the totality of the circumstances, requiring further proceedings. Harvey v. Plains Twp. Pol. Dep't, #09-1170, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 6236 (3rd Cir.).
     Using a jackhammer to break up concrete during a search authorized by a warrant for a body was reasonable. A federal appeals court rejected a proposed "least possible destructive means" legal standard for conducting such searches. The lawsuit was brought by the landlord of the property, which had been rented to a suspect in a woman's disappearance. The federal appeals court commented that "it seems quite unfair to make an innocent, unlucky landlord absorb the costs associated with the execution of a search warrant directed at a criminally-inclined tenant," but suggested that the landlord pursue available state remedies. He did not, however, "have grounds to make a federal constitutional claim under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." Johnson v. Manitowoc County, #10-2409, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4648 (7th Cir.).
    The owners and operators of a gun shop in Los Angeles sued the city, its police department, and a number of individual officers for allegedly conducting an illegal search of the business. After the plaintiffs allegedly purchased illegal firearms from the police during a sting operation, officers obtained search warrants for their business and residence and found illegal firearms and ammunition at both locations. The plaintiffs did not challenge the validity of the warrants at their criminal trial and, as part of a plea bargain, pled guilty to one count of possession of an illegal assault weapon found at their residence. Their subsequent lawsuit for illegal search and seizure was barred, a federal appeals court ruled, as its success would necessarily imply the invalidity of their criminal convictions, which had not been set aside. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, #08-57010, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 2796 (9th Cir.).
     Police who seized a paint sprayer alleged to be stolen from a pawn shop during business hours without a warrant did not violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment, since the item was in plain view. The trial court did not have to find that the alleged victim of the theft was, in fact, the owner of the item in order to justify the item's seizure under the plain view doctrine. PPS, Inc. v. Faulkner Cty., Ark., #09-3540, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 577 (8th Cir.).
     Officers went to a student's home to investigate suspicions that he planned to "shoot up" the school. Encountering his mother at the door, two of them were denied permission to enter, but did so anyway when she went inside to get her husband, following her in. Two other officers who had not been close enough to hear the conversation also went in. After a discussion with the student and his family, the officers decided that there was no threat to the school from the student. In a lawsuit over the alleged unlawful warrantless entry without consent, only the two officers who had not heard the refusal of consent were entitled to qualified immunity, as only they could reasonably believe that consent to entry had been given. No exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless unconsented entry existed. Huff v. City of Burbank, #09-55239, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 493 (9th Cir.).
     Police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for executing a search warrant on a residence for evidence of child pornography in a no-knock manner. There were no circumstances indicating danger to the officers in executing the warrant, and the fact that some residents had permits to carry concealed weapons only showed that they were citizens in good standing who passed a background check. Bellotte v. Edwards, #10-1115, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 520 (4th Cir.).
    A county official's failure to provide any notice and an opportunity to respond to the estate before he entered the home of a recently deceased man and removed personal property, some of which was sold and some of which he stored violated due process, when there were no extraordinary circumstances justifying these actions. The official, the county public administrator, was, however, entitled to qualified immunity for making a warrantless entry into the home after being informed of the death, for the purpose of securing the property of the estate, although not for taking it away. Mathis v. County of Lyon, #08-17302, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 1956 (9th Cir.).
     A city in Texas entered into an agreement with a professional football team to become the owner of a new sports stadium leased by the team. The city reviewed and modified a proposed traffic management plan for the area around the stadium. The owners of a 348-unit building next to the stadium sued the city for unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, regulatory and physical "takings" in violation of due process, and private nuisance, based on residents' delays in entering or leaving the building due to the large numbers of pedestrians who converge on the stadium during events, and restrictions on vehicular traffic on the street. The trial court granted summary judgment to the city. Affirming this result, a federal appeals court found that the plaintiff had failed to show any "seizure" that amounted to a meaningful interference with its possessory interests in its property. The inconveniences suffered due to the crowds and noise attracted by the stadium did not amount to a seizure under any prior Fourth Amendment caselaw. Enclave Arlington Associates Limited Partnership v. City of Arlington, Texas, #09-11202, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23637 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     A town ordinance authorized police to post a bright orange sticker at the front entrance of any residence found to have hosted an "unruly gathering," after intervening and dispersing it for violations of the law such as excessive noise, obstruction of streets, illegal parking, public drunkenness or urination, or the serving of alcohol to minors. The notice informs those who own or reside in the building that, should police intervention be required at that location in response to another violation, the owners and residents, the sponsors of the gathering, and any guests who cause a nuisance will be held jointly and severally liable. Landlords are informed of the notice by mail. In a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this measure, a federal appeals court found that it was unorthodox but did not offend the constitution or state law. URI Student Senate v. Town of Narragansett, #10-1209, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 141 (1st 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.).
     Officers concerned about the well-being of the young daughter of a man estranged from his wife made a warrantless entry into a home to check on her. The wife had gone to the home to pick up the daughter for court ordered visitation, received no response to the doorbell, and contacted the police after seeing a man inside she thought was her husband. Police were concerned because of past domestic disputes involving the couple, and consulted a judge, who told them they could enter. The man and his daughter were not in the home, and he later sued the officers for their warrantless entry. The federal appeals court rejected the argument that the officers' warrantless entry was justified by their "community caretaking" function, ruling that this doctrine is best viewed as applying in the context of vehicle searches, rather than home searches, since there is a lesser expectation of privacy when it comes to vehicles. The court also ruled, however, that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, since the law on the subject was not clearly established in the 3rd Circuit at the time of the search, and some courts had, indeed, applied the community caretaking doctrine to home or business searches. Ray v. Township of Warren, #09-4353, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 24043 (3rd 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.).
     Officers in SWAT gear, with the word "POLICE" displayed on the officers' chests, entered a home to serve a search warrant. An occupant ran towards his bedroom. When the officers knocked down the door, and entered the bedroom, yelling "Police," the man raised and pointed a gun at them, and they shot and killed him. An unreasonable search and seizure claim against the city failed, as the plaintiff could not establish that the city had a custom or policy of entering homes to execute search warrants without first knocking and announcing police presence. Ample testimony established that standard police procedure was to knock and announce, and the plaintiff's ability to point to a small handful of cases in which officers did not do so was insufficient to show an unconstitutional policy or custom. Whittier v. City of Sunrise, #10-10032, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19140 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     Officers armed with a valid warrant carried out a search of the plaintiffs' farm. In the lawsuit filed asserting search and seizure claims, the plaintiffs claimed that the search resulted in their cattle losing weight, that a stove was left on while they were detained during the search, and that a number of kittens died. It was the arrival of the officers, which was necessary to carry out the search, which caused the cattle to become "spooked," bolt, and break through a fence. The fact that this occurred as a result of the officers' arrival did not render the search unlawful. The officers acted reasonably in denying one of the plaintiffs her request to enter her house to turn off her stove and check on her cat, as the search warrant mandated a search for a number of small items, including a ring, a watch, photos, and papers, which could have easily be moved, destroyed, or concealed if she entered the house. The detention of the plaintiffs during the search, which lasted less than an hour, was reasonable. Lykken v. Brady, #09-3008, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19569 (8th 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.).
     Two officers went to a home after a 911 hang-up call was received from there. They entered the home, seeing that the front door was wide open, concerned that someone might be hurt or in need of assistance. They first announced their presence and entered after receiving no response. At one point, they encountered a man, who did not answer their question about why he had not responded to their calls. Instead, he jumped on one officer, and a fight began. The man grabbed one officer's gun hand, and that officer yelled to the second officer that the man was going for his gun. The second officer shouted repeatedly at the man to get down, and then fired at him. The man then charged this officer and hit him with enough force to briefly knock him out. The man then died from being shot. He was bipolar, and off his medication, and his wife called 911 and hung up, and then called a second time, telling the dispatcher of the medical situation, but this information never reached the officers. In a lawsuit by the wife against the city, the court ruled that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The officers' warrantless entry into the home was justified by exigent circumstances. Johnson v. City of Memphis, 09-5046, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17658 (6th Cir.).
     A gunshop owner was training a customer to use a handgun when the customer intentionally shot himself in the head to commit suicide. A police investigation concluded that the store owner was not at fault for the suicide, but the police chief still suspended the store owner's firearms license, pending further investigation. The police department contacted ATF to request that they inspect the store, and an ATF inspector arrived to do that. During the inspection, he allegedly found several violations of federal firearms regulations, such as sales without completing required forms, and failure to update records to account for several firearms. The store's federal license was suspended and its state license was first suspended and then revoked. The owner sued the ATF agent, claiming that the inspection, and his seizure of his federal license and several gun frames lacking serial numbers violated his rights. A federal appeals court found that the ATF agent was entitled to qualified immunity. The court rejected the argument that the inspection was not legitimate because the agent was acting at the behest of the local police department. The statute allowing for ATF inspections of gun shops does not prevent the ATF from doing so at the request of local police. Giragosian v. Bettencourt, #09-2001, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15670 (1st 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.).
     Members of a family who lived together in a home sued a police department and town for an allegedly unreasonable search of their residence. While one family member allegedly gave consent for the warrantless search, the plaintiffs argued that the consent was obtained through misrepresentations, and also was negated by another family member's explicit refusal of consent. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants and the plaintiffs argued on appeal that the trial court improperly told the jury that they had the burden of proof in showing a lack of consent to the search. Because the plaintiffs had not objected at trial to this portion of the jury instructions, the plaintiffs could only prevail on this issue on appeal if they could show that the instructions amounted to "plain error." They could not do this, as the law of the Second Circuit on who bears the burden of proof as to whether there was consent to a search is not clearly established. Tirreno v. Mott, #08-2983, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 8977 (Unpub. 2nd 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.).
     A husband and wife claimed that officers violated their rights in making a warrantless entry into and search of their residence, arresting them, and using excessive force against the husband. The appeals court found that there was a significant disputed material issue of fact as to whether or not the officers smelled the odor of marijuana while talking to the husband. If they did not, they lacked exigent circumstances and probable cause to make their warrantless entry, and their subsequent actions were unjustified. Tubbs v. Harrison, #09-6152, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12883 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
     A husband and wife claimed that sheriff's deputies violated their Fourth Amendment rights by making a warrantless entry into their garage and arresting the wife for obstruction of justice. The wife had attempted to close the garage door to bar the deputies from serving a court order on her husband, but one deputy stepped into the garage as the door was closing, breaking the electronic eye safety beam on the garage door, and causing the door to fully open, whereupon the deputies entered. They did not have a search or arrest warrant. The appeals court held that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity, as it was not clearly established law that the couple had a Fourth Amendment right against a warrantless entry of their garage or a warrantless arrest inside it. It was also not clearly established that entry into a garage, even when attached to a home, was the same as entry into the home, or that the attached garage constituted part of the curtilage of the home when the door was open. Coffin v. Brandau, #08-14538, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12780 (11th Cir.).
     A man purchased 6.70 acres of land within three miles of a city's limits, in an area in which the city had statutory planning and zoning authority. The property included a forested area, a ravine, a house, and a "dilapidated" two-story structure built by a prior owner without building permits that the city had placarded for condemnation. The city subsequently notified the owner that it had evidence that he was dumping building rubble and demolition debris on the property illegally, and ordered such activity to cease. A health inspector entered the property and photographed the debris, accompanied by a city code inspector. The owner was charged with a littering violation, which was eventually dismissed for technical reasons related to speedy trial requirements. The owner filed a federal civil rights lawsuit asserting Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims. A federal appeals court ruled that an inspector who was lawfully on the property and who saw apparent public health sand safety violations from the exterior of a garage structure did not need a warrant to look in a window to confirm the apparent violations. Summary judgment for the defendants was affirmed. Nikolas v. Omaha, #09-1679, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 9974 (8th Cir.).
     A woman claimed that police violated her rights when they entered her home without a warrant and detained her son. The incident happened following two bomb threats being called in to a high school by an anonymous caller. The school was under lockdown for security purposes, and an earlier call had threatened a shooting at the school. Police suspected, based on information that they had received, that the woman's son had made the bomb threats and was involved in gang activity, and that the home was a gang hangout. When officers discovered that the threatening phone calls had not been made from either the house phone or the boy's cell phone, they left the house and stopped detaining the son. A federal appeals court ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they reasonably acted on what they believed to be exigent circumstances, an urgent need to protect students at the high school against a possible bomb threat. Armijo v. Peterson, #09-2114 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 7572 (10th Cir.).
     Following the purchase of narcotics from a suspect by undercover informants, one seller began moving at a fast pace back to his apartment. Officers went to the building, and heard a door slam at the far end of the hallway. They encountered a scent of burning marijuana, and decided to attempt a warrantless entry into the apartment on the left of the hallway, rather than the right, on that basis. The officers knocked and announced their presence, but believed that sounds coming from inside the apartment might means that the fleeing drug seller was now destroying physical evidence within, so they entered. They saw large quantities of marijuana and cocaine in plain view and arrested occupants of the apartment. Ruling that the evidence obtained should be suppressed, the Kentucky Supreme Court stated that the officers did not have proper exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry into the apartment. The court reasoned that the officers were not in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect because the fleeing suspect did not have awareness that he was being pursued. The court further believed that the warrantless entry was not justified by the imminent destruction of evidence, and that, indeed, by knocking on the door and announcing their presence, the officers "created any resulting emergency" and the possible destruction of evidence. The court believed that the proper thing to do would have been for officers to seek and obtain a search warrant. King v. Commonwealth, #2008-SC-00274, 302 S.W.3d 649 (Ky. 2010).
     An officer received an anonymous call indicating that drug sales were taking place at an apartment. On two occasions, the officer then went to the building, and a drug sniffing dog alerted to the presence of narcotics on the outside of the apartment door. Based on this, he obtained a search warrant. No drugs were found during the ensuing search. During the search the officers drew their weapons and forced the married couple who lived there to get on the floor. The couple's son was also present and was detained. A federal appeals court found that the plaintiffs adequately stated claims for excessive use of force in the execution of the search warrant, as well as continuing the residents' interrogation and the use of force against them after it had become plain that no drugs were present. The officers allegedly kept the plaintiffs at gunpoint and handcuffed for over an hour, even though they prepared a confidential operation plan for the raid stating that no firearms were anticipated to be found in the apartment. Binay v. Bettendorf, #09-1249, 010 U.S. App. Lexis 8084 (6th Cir.).
     After officers arrested a man, they claimed that the fact that they found house keys on his person during a search incident to the arrest justified them in conducting a non-consensual, warrantless search of the house, which the keys unlocked. A federal appeals court found this argument to be utterly without merit, so that if the facts were as the plaintiff asserted, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim for illegal search. The arrest warrant, issued by another state, Georgia, authorized their arrest of the plaintiff, but did not provide them with any basis to search his home. Quint v. Village of Deerfield, #09-2508, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4184 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
     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 murder suspect lived in a house with other individuals. Police received information from a friend of his that the suspect had tried to destroy evidence in a related crime, and feared that he might destroy evidence of the murder or flee. They therefore carried out an unannounced warrantless entry into the house. During the ensuing search, officers allegedly pointed guns at residents, including children, and detained them for 13 hours. A federal appeals court ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the failure-to-announce and warrantless entry claims in the residents' lawsuit. While a jury might find that the entry was not justified by exigent circumstances, the law on the subject under these circumstances was not clearly established. Detention of the residents was justified by the dangerousness of the suspect, the need to carry out an orderly search, and the fear that evidence could be destroyed. Summary judgment was overturned, however, on excessive force claims, since a reasonable jury could find that the officers used excessive force by entering with guns drawn, pointing guns at the residents, and putting handcuffs on one of them in a manner that caused pain. Curiel v. County of Contra Costa, #07-17233, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 1358 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
     A private religious boarding school for children with behavioral and substance abuse problems, six former students, and thirteen parents of the former students sued Missouri juvenile officials, claiming that they conspired to raid the school and seize scores of its students. The purported ringleader of the conspiracy allegedly disliked the school because it operated, legally, without a license, because he disagreed with its teachings, and because he believed that it had not acted "very Christ-like." Juvenile authorities and armed law enforcement officers, numbering 30 persons in total, arrived at the school and removed 115 of its students, based on ex parte orders from local juvenile court judges, allegedly obtained by misrepresentations that the students were in imminent danger of physical harm and that the school was unwilling to cooperate with juvenile authorities. Because the information presented was also "stale" the raiding party lacked orders for dozens of the students that they removed, but they had orders for about forty children who no longer lived there, as well as for four adults over whom the juvenile courts lacked jurisdiction. The children were detained until their parents could pick them up, and parents were then given "stern letters" telling them to keep their children away from the school. Juvenile cases involving the children were all dismissed. The defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, as the constitutional rights violated under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment if the plaintiffs' allegations were true were clearly established. Heartland Acad. Community Church v. Anderson, #08-3723 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2619 (8th Cir.).
     The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that the homes of parolees may be subject to a warrantless search without reasonable or individualized suspicion when searches are made a condition of parole. Officers searched the parolee's home after a pat-down search revealed that she was in possession of $975, despite the fact that she had no source of income, and after they received information that indicated that she'd "been involved in dealing drugs again." A handgun was recovered from the home during the search. The court ruled that the search did not violate either the Fourth Amendment or unreasonable search and seizure prohibitions of the state constitution. In doing so, it adopted the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in Samson v. California, #04-9728, 547 U.S. 843 (2006). State of Tennessee v. Turner, #W2007-01590-SC-R11, 297 S.W.3d 155; 2009 Tenn. Lexis 678.
     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.).
     The team leader of a SWAT team that participated in a raid during which a woman's son, sought for drug offenses, was shot and killed, was entitled to summary judgment on the claim that he should be liable for the death due to the allegedly no-knock way in which the search warrant was executed. Whether or not a knock-and-announce occurred, which was disputed, the team leader was entitled to qualified immunity because knowledge of the nature of the drug trafficking, combined with information that the son was armed, provided reasonable suspicion that there were exigent circumstances justifying a no-knock entry. Whittier v. Kobayashi, #08-12998, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 19488 (11th Cir.).
     Because there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether animal cruelty proceedings against the plaintiff were civil or criminal in nature, officers were not entitled to summary judgment in a lawsuit alleging an unlawful warrantless search of her property and seizure of her 47 dogs and cats. Officials feared for the safety of the animals after hearing a false rumor that she had been placed in a mental health care facility. Animal cruelty charges against the plaintiff were dropped, and she agreed to pay some of the county's costs and submit to periodic inspections. If the proceedings were civil in nature, the plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit would not be barred under Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) by the result in the prior case. The court also found that a prosecutor was not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for her actions in allegedly entering the plaintiff's property, assessing the condition of the animals, providing legal advice to the officers, and participating in the seizure of her animals. Hoog-Watson v. Guadalupe City, #08-50077, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 27639 (5th Cir.).
     Officers did not violate the rights of apartment renters in searching their home and detaining them during the search. The homeowners were suspected of drug trafficking, and the officers obtained a search warrant that covered a house and the detached garage which contained the garage apartment in which the renters resided. The officers, after entering, observed marijuana in plain view, and the officers reasonably suspected that the homeowners might be using the garage apartment to use and store drugs. Harman v. Pollock, #08-4068, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 25394 (10th Cir.).
     In the absence of exigent circumstances, an officer may not make a warrantless and non-consensual entry into a home to arrest a routine felony suspect, and interpreting a Texas statute to allow such arrests would not be objectively reasonable, so that a police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest and unlawful entry and search claims. Denton v. Rievley, #08-6406, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24912 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
     After officers searching his house pursuant to a search warrant found 7.6 grams of methamphetamine ("meth"), the arrestee complained about pain he was suffering due to recent surgery. Officers present, two of whom allegedly had their guns drawn, purportedly ordered him to take two tablets of a strong narcotic pain reliever, oxycontin, which he did. They then allegedly compelled him to reveal where he was concealing another 21 grams of meth. He later pled guilty to possession of meth with intent to distribute. An appeals court reasoned that a favorable ruling on the arrestee's Fourth Amendment and due process claims would not necessarily call into question the validity of his conviction, since the drugs found before the alleged compelled disclosure of the additional drugs were sufficient to support the charges. Because the arrestee pled guilty without going to trial, there was no violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition on compelled self-incrimination, since no allegedly compelled incriminatory statements were used as evidence. The arrestee could continue with his unreasonable search claim and his due process claim, and seek damages for alleged physical injury resulting from a compelled overdose of pain medication. Pearson v. Weischedel, #09-8058, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 22788 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
     A police chief went to a residence, seeking to arrest a married couple's daughter. At the door, the mother refused to cooperate, and the chief tried to restrain and handcuff her, but she retreated inside. The chief sought assistance from county sheriff's deputies. When they arrived, and asked the mother to come outside, she told them to come inside if they wanted to talk to her. Her husband then opened the door for them. After entering, a deputy took her into custody, and escorted her out of the house and into the police chief's car. The daughter was then arrested as she stood in the open doorway. Rejecting claims of unlawful search and seizure and false arrest, a federal appeals court noted that the deputies' entrance into the home was based on the consent from the mother and her husband, and found that it was reasonable for officers to believe that there was probable cause to arrest the mother. Berglund v. Pottawatomie County Board of County Commissioners, #09-6000, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 23293 (Unpub.10th 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.).
     A police officer claimed that he had probable cause to seize a large amount of money found in a suspect's possession, but a federal appeals court, upholding an award of $1 in nominal damages and attorneys' fees against the officer for a Fourth Amendment violation, found that the mere fact that a large amount of money was found was insufficient to show a connection to possible drug sales. Even though the plaintiff used two different names when he checked into a hotel, had ties to New York City, and had a third-degree robbery criminal record, these additional facts also did not establish probable cause to find drug trafficking, but merely supported a brief detention of the money for further investigation, rather than the lengthy detention that occurred. The plaintiff had presented evidence that he currently resided in Vermont, explained why he used two names and did not try to conceal it, and his most recent robbery conviction occurred long ago in 1973. Diamond v. O'Connor, #08-5082, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 21413 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
     The U.S. government was not entitled to the civil forfeiture of $200,000 in funds that were allegedly the proceeds of a Los Angeles medical marijuana distribution group. A federal court found that that the evidence presented was the result of an illegal search and therefore should have been suppressed. Without the suppressed evidence, there was nothing to tie the funds to any violation of federal drug laws. "Given the government's strong financial incentive to prevail in civil forfeiture actions, the application of the exclusionary sanction in these cases is likely to prove especially effective in deterring law enforcement agents from engaging in illegal activity. Applying the exclusionary rule in forfeiture proceedings also protects judicial integrity by ensuring that the courts do not serve as a conduit through which the government fills its coffers at the expense of those whose constitutional rights its agents violated." The problem with the state warrant under which the funds had been seized, along with 209 pounds of marijuana, 21 pounds of hashish and 12 pounds of marijuana oil was that the judge who signed the warrant was not told that the premises operated as a medical dispensary, and therefore might not have been in violation of California state laws. The appeals court was particularly concerned that the Los Angeles police, who obtained a search warrant and conducted the raid, turning over 80% of the money to the federal government, but retaining 20% of the funds for the local police department "might stand to profit from unlawful activity." U.S. v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, #07-56549, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 22833 (9th. 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.).
     Police detectives were to seize and secure two forfeited homes, pursuant to a valid court order, but allegedly entered a different home, on the same street, which had a different address, but which did not have its number clearly marked on its exterior. The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit by the occupants of that home, which claimed unlawful search and seizure. The court noted that the correct home was on the opposite side of the street, and that the detectives allegedly did not even check if they were on the "odd" or "even" side of the street. Williams v. District Attorney's Office of Philadelphia, #08-1080, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 67784 (E.D. Pa.).
     When a man asked officers to leave his home and one of them failed to comply, any consensual encounter was over. An officer lacked probable cause to support his belief that the man had violated a state's obstruction of justice statutes, and he could not, without violating the Fourth Amendment, remain present based solely on a "hunch" that the man "knew more" than he was saying. The officer was not entitled to qualified immunity as he did not act in an objectively reasonable manner under clearly established law. The officer's further act, in detaining the man handcuffed in the back of a police vehicle for three hours after he agreed to help the officer locate a suspect, constituted an unlawful arrest for which no justification was stated. The appeals court ordered a judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiff and a trial on the issue of damages. Manzanares v. Higdon, #07-2156, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17817 (10th Cir.).
     An officer was involved in the execution of a search warrant on a private industrial park containing two auto body shops, based on an alleged crime of altering a vehicle identification number. The court found that the alleged crime did not involve violence and that there was no indication that anyone at the location of the search was dangerous, armed, or offering resistance. The officer, despite these facts, wielded a 9-millimeter submachine gun, which he utilized to detain a number of people present. Subsequently, the search ended after a determination that the VIN had not been altered. The federal appeals court ruled that the use of the submachine gun was objectively unreasonable under these circumstances. The officer was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on the detainees' excessive force claims. Baird v. Renbarger, #08-2436, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17215 (7th Cir.).
     An animal control officer seized a wolf from the plaintiffs' home while they were absent. A federal appeals court held that the fact that the wolf may have been lawfully possessed did not mean that it could not be seized before the legality of its status was verified if the seizure was necessary to protect public safety. The officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the court could not find that a reasonable officer would have found it apparent that her actions were unlawful. There was no showing that the officer acted pursuant to an official government policy or custom, so the county could not be held liable. Walker v. Prince Georges County, #08-1462, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16872 (4th Cir.).
     Police officers may not remain in a residence after consent to enter, previously granted, is revoked, nor may they detain a person for the duration of an investigation on the mere basis of a hunch that they might aid a suspect if released. Summary judgment for the defendant officers was therefore reversed. Manzanares v. Higdon, No. 07-2156, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17817 (10th Cir.).
     Sheriff's deputies accompanied a homeowner's girlfriend into the residence's private study to help determine if he had hidden any of the girlfriend's property there. While there, the deputies observed drugs and drug paraphernalia. While the girlfriend lacked the actual authority to consent to the deputies warrantless entry into the study, the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity from liability, since the law on this subject was not clearly established at the time. The appeals court further held that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on due process claims, because there was no prior recognition of a "particularized" right to notice, following a warrantless search, of the search itself and the items seized. Moore v County of Delaware, #08-2426, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 16452 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.).
     Police officers lacking a warrant or probable cause, according to an appeals court, broke into a man's home based of a statement from a third party that the occupant had been involved in an "extremely minor traffic incident, an incident so minor that it did not cause as much as a scratch on either of the vehicles involved, and that he appeared to have been drinking." The officers entered with flashlights shining and guns drawn, handcuffing the man, removing him from the house, and placing him under arrest. The officers subsequently explained that, hearing that the man had the smell of alcohol on his breath, they feared that he was on the brink of a diabetic coma and sought to provide "medical assistance." One officer stated that they entered with guns drawn because persons suffering from diabetic emergencies may be "combative." The appeals court noted, however, that the man was not suffering from a diabetic coma and was not combative, but was simply watching television in his bedroom when encountered. Two officers who entered the home were not entitled to qualified immunity, as their conduct, if as described, violated the homeowner's clearly established constitutional rights. A third officer, who did not enter the home, but instead remained outside, was a "mere bystander" to the incident, and could not be held liable for the warrantless entry. Hopkins v. Bonvicino, #07-15102, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15689 (9th Cir.).
     A man was convicted of drug and firearms-related crimes based on evidence seized from his apartment during a search conducted pursuant to a search warrant. The search warrant was issued because the plaintiff had been observed by federal agents driving a person to a vehicle used in a bank robbery. While the search was for evidence of involvement in the bank robbery, it uncovered a gun, drugs, and drug paraphernalia. The plaintiff's lawsuit was barred because success in his illegal search claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction, and his conviction had not been overturned on appeal or otherwise set aside. Crawford v. Frimel, #07-3452, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 15012 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     Police officer's warrantless entry into a home was justified by exigent circumstances when he suspected that the house was being vandalized and that there was a possibility that a missing teenage girl was inside. The officer was responding to a neighbor's 911 call indicating that she thought the homeowners were on vacation and that she feared that burglary or vandalism was occurring. The officer saw lights inside the house turn off as he approached, no one answered the doorbell, and he noticed that a formerly closed garage door had been opened when he returned to his patrol car. Additionally, the owner of a vehicle parked outside the house told the officer that he did not know why the car, which was his stepdaughter's vehicle, was there, and that he was worried about her safety because she did not answers calls to her cell phone. Additionally, two weeks earlier, a vacant house in the area had burned down because of unauthorized use. Hunsberger v. Wood, #08-1782, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13925 (4th Cir.).
     Rejecting unlawful search claims from a rental property owner, the court found that, even if a search or inspection of the property had occurred, the Fourth Amendment was not violated since tenants present on the property consented. Tarantino v. City of Hornell, #05-CV-6587, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42397 (W.D.N.Y.).
     An man convicted of a criminal charge sued, claiming that officers had violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his bag, which he entrusted to his roommate. A federal appeals court rejected the argument that his conviction barred his Fourth Amendment lawsuit. Since he was convicted through a guilty plea, a decision in his favor on the Fourth Amendment claim would not imply the invalidity of the conviction, as it did not rest on any evidence obtained through the search. Easterling v. Moeller, #08-3741, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 14067 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
     Following the murder of a deputy sheriff, a search warrant was obtained for the residence of the parents-in-law of the suspected killer, and their property was searched. An officer subsequently ordered a stop of the suspect's sister-in-law. Both the search and the stop, a federal appeals court stated, were based on little more than the family relationship. The court held that these actions were unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A family relationship is an insufficient basis to support such invasions of privacy. The officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, as the legal principles involved were clearly established at the time. Poolaw v. Marcantel, #07-2254, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9483 (10th Cir.).
     After receiving information that a fugitive from a house-arrest program was at another man's trailer, agents and deputies arrested him outside the trailer. They then conducted a warrantless search of the inside of the trailer. An appeals court disagreed with the trial court's determination that this search was supported by exigent circumstances, and concern for the safety of the agents and deputies. Summary judgment for the defendants was improper because of a factual dispute over whether the fugitive was arrested right near the front door of the trailer, which may have justified the search, or at the end of a 76-foot driveway, which was not in close proximity to the trailer. The court did find, however, that there was no evidence that the warrantless search was the result of a county policy or custom, so claims against the sheriff's department and the deputies in their official capacities were properly rejected. Reese v. Monroe County Sheriff's Dept., #08-60362, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9501 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     A mother and daughter failed to show that a federal agent who obtained a warrant for their residence made any material misrepresentations of fact in the affidavit seeking the warrant, either deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth. The entry of federal agents, armed with the warrant, into the home did not amount to "assault," and their pointing of guns at the plaintiffs was reasonable since the plaintiffs tried to prevent their entry into the house, which was legally authorized. Unus v. Kane, #07-2191, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9955 (4th Cir.).
     A Michigan Assistant Attorney General and two state special agents were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity on federal civil rights claims arising from their six-hour search of a man's business pursuant to a search warrant, during which time they found evidence that he had the financial ability to meet his child support obligations. This resulted in him subsequently pleading guilty to four felony charges for failing to pay child support to four women who had his children. Claims against the defendants in their official capacities were claims against the state barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Additionally, the Assistant Attorney General was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity on individual capacity claims, as authorizing the issuance of a search warrant in the course of a criminal investigation and prosecuting felony refusal to pay child support was part of her prosecutorial duties. Streater v. Cox, #08-1631, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 10597 (Unpub. 6th 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 nightclub stated viable claims for violation of Fourth Amendment rights in alleging that officers entered the premises without a warrant, without probable cause, and for the purpose of investigating possible drug use there, frisking patrons, handcuffing a number of them without making arrests, ordering lights turned on at the club, and generally acting in an "intimidating" way. Claims related to an earlier incident at the club were time barred as the lawsuit was filed four days after the applicable two-year statute of limitations expired. The Illusions of the South, Inc. v. City of Valdosta, #7:07-cv-6, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 27154 (M.D. Ga.).
     A homeowner changed the locks on her house when her 18-year-old son stayed overnight at his girlfriend's residence, and told her son, when he returned home, that he no longer lived there. An officer made a warrantless entry into the home with the son, over his mother's objections, to help retrieve the son's belongings. The mother told the officer that her son no longer lived there and could not consent to the officer's entry, and had not even been able to give such consent when he did live there. The officer determined that the son could consent, and proceeded to make the entry. A federal appeals court overturned the trial court's judgment that no constitutional violation had occurred with the entry. It found that a reasonably jury could find, under these circumstances, that the son intended to live elsewhere, had moved out, and could not consent to the officer's entry. Further proceedings were ordered on the mother's Fourth Amendment claims. Kirley v. Williams, #07-2728, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9696 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     SWAT officers who staged a raid on a bar without a warrant were not entitled to qualified immunity in the bar owner's lawsuit claiming that the raid was illegal, involved unreasonable violence, and was not justified by specified state laws allowing "administrative inspection" of licensed bars. Club Retro LLC v. Hilton, #08-30512, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 9864 (5th Cir.).
     Even if a trial court erred in instructing a jury that officers could have lawfully arrested the plaintiff for actions he took in his front yard, this was a harmless error, since the arrest of the plaintiff was not based on his actions in his front yard, but for allegedly assaulting the officers in his backyard. Claims of unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution were rejected. The trial court properly rejected claims against a mayor and a mayor's assistant, since there was no evidence that they participated in any violation of the arrestee's rights. The plaintiff was properly awarded $20 in damages on his claim that officers engaged in unreasonable search and seizure when they came to his house, accompanied by a police dog, to ticket abandoned vehicles, and properly denied the plaintiff attorneys' fees in light of his limited success on only one of several claims, and the award of nominal damages. Brocuglio v. Proulx, #07-1676, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 8892 (Unpub. 2nd Cir.)
     Officers were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for their search of a home pursuant to a search warrant. Information developed during an investigation indicated that the owner operated a house of prostitution elsewhere. An officer had a reasonable belief that there was probable cause that evidence related to the prostitution business would be present in the home. Johnson v. Walton. #07-55935, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5213 (9th Cir.).
     Sheriff's deputies who conducted a search of a residence in obedience to court orders were entitled to "quasi-judicial" immunity from liability for the alleged illegality of the search. The orders directed the seizure of certain items from the home allegedly needed as evidence in a pending civil lawsuit, and were apparently sought in order to prevent the possible destruction or alteration of the evidence. The court orders were facially valid, and the judge's alleged error in issuing the orders did not deprive him of jurisdiction to do so. Under Utah law, the deputies were required to carry out court orders, and could have faced contempt of court charges had they failed to do so. Moss v. Kopp, #07-4098, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5752 (10th Cir.).
     An officer was not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit filed by a man he shot twice when he answered the officer's knock on his trailer door by coming out holding a rifle. The officers were present on the property searching for an arrestee who had escaped from probation officers. The man claimed that he grabbed his rifle because he believed a "predator" was raiding his chicken coops, that the rifle was pointed at the ground, and that the officer fired without any warning. The court stated that the mere presence of the rifle under these circumstances was insufficient to justify the use of deadly force. The court also found that the search of the curtilage of the trailer violated the trailer resident's Fourth Amendment rights. The appeals court rejected claims of racial discrimination, however. Pena v. Porter, #07-1891, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 5324 (Unpub. 4th Cir.).
     Officers who believed that a man who had allegedly previously threatened suicide was a possible danger to himself had exigent circumstances sufficient to remove him from his home and take him to a doctor for possible psychological evaluation. Cloaninger v. McDevitt, No. 072054, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 2322 (4th Cir.).
      In Pearson v. Callahan, No. 07-751, 2009 U.S. Lexis 59, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was not "clearly established" for purposes of qualified immunity, that a warrantless entry into a drug suspect's residence was unlawful when it was based on his prior consent to entry by an undercover informant to whom he allegedly had sold drugs (the application of the "consent once removed" doctrine, involving such consent given to undercover officers to mere informants). On remand, in Callahan v. Millard Cty., No. 06-4135, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 3715 (10th Cir.), in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, the federal appeals court found that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on federal civil rights search and seizure claims arising from the warrantless entry.
      Search warrant for a residence had sufficient information to support a fair probability that evidence of crime would be found there. The use of armed 20-person SWAT team, three K9 officers, and a battering ram in carrying out the search was justified by the officers' surveillance, which showed that the residence had multiple floors and that there were multiple occupants who needed to be detained, and who were believed to be preparing to escape. Walker v. City of Wilmington, Civ. No. 06-288, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 74965 (D. Del.).
     Officers who had a valid warrant authorizing no-knock entry reasonably believed that the occupant of a residence was armed and dangerous, since he had a history of having a "significant" number of guns, storing some of them in the walls within trap doors, owning a lion, and had not been seen leaving the residence before the entry. The officers acted reasonably, under the circumstances, in the amount of force used in the process of entry, which included use of tear gas and flash grenades, breaking two windows, and ramming a side door and damaging its latches. Other destructive acts once inside, including tearing through the ceiling to get to the attic, and making a hole in the wall, were justified to make sure that no persons or weapons were concealed. Cook v. Gibbons, No. 07-1754, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 1095 (Unpub. 8th Cir.).
     Rejecting a claim that officers violated a man's rights in carrying out a warrantless search of a trailer in which he lived, a federal appeals court found that the trailer was on land owned by another person, a rancher, and that the rancher gave the officers actual and apparent permission for the search, representing that the man was his employee, lived in the trailer rent-free, and that the rancher had unrestricted rights to access the trailer. The officers, relying on those representations, were entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's federal civil rights lawsuit. Morales v. Boyd, No. 07-11291, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 26153 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     A man whose conviction for selling drugs to an undercover informant he voluntarily admitted into his residence was overturned sued Utah state law enforcement personnel who carried out a warrantless search of the premises. The trial court found that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity based on the adoption, by some courts of the "consent-once-removed" doctrine, allowing warrantless entry by officers into homes after consent to entry has previously been given to undercover officers who have observed drugs or other contraband in plain view. This was found to have entitled the officers to have reasonably believed their entry to have been lawful. Based on a two-step procedure spelled out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, a federal appeals court rejected the qualified immunity defense, based on a rejection of the expansion of the "consent-once-removed" doctrine to the facts of the immediate case, in which the person initially voluntarily admitted into the home was not an undercover officer, but merely an informant. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
     The Court first found that the Saucier two-step procedure for finding qualified immunity should not be "regarded as an "inflexible requirement." The two-steps involve first determining whether the facts claimed constitute a violation of a constitutional right, and secondly, whether that right was "clearly established" at the time, with qualified immunity applying unless the conduct alleged violated such a clearly established right.
     While this two-step analysis may still be useful in some cases, the first step of deciding whether a constitutional right was actually violated may be avoided in instances such as the immediate case where it can be found that it was not clearly established, at the time of the conduct at issue, that the conduct was unlawful. In this case, at the time of the warrantless search, it was not clearly established that the officers' entry was unlawful, based on the adoption of the "consent-once-removed" doctrine by two state Supreme Courts, and three federal appeals courts. The officers could act in reliance on these decisions even when the federal appeals court governing their area had not yet decided the issue, particularly where no federal appeals court had then explicitly rejected the doctrine at issue. Pearson v. Callahan, No. 07-751, 2009 U.S. Lexis 591.
     Police officer did not have an arrestee's consent to enter his home to arrest him, but allegedly simply entered through the front door after confirming his identity, grabbed the arrestee's arm, and wound up pushing him approximately six feet before arresting him. The arrestee immediately asked to see a warrant, and the warrantless entry to arrest him was not justified by either consent or exigent circumstances. Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Shepard v. Davis, No. 07-11307, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 24172 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     Police who entered a condemned building without a warrant to place illegal occupants staging a protest under arrest were entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment and First Amendment claims, as their actions did not violate these rights. Further proceedings were needed, however, on claims related to strip searches conducted. Cross v. Mokwa, No. 07-3110, 547 F.3d 890 (8th Cir. 2008).
     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.).
    Claims against a municipal judge for allegedly conspiring with a police officer to issue an "oral warrant" to search a man's home, knowing that no authority to issue the search warrant existed, were barred by absolute judicial immunity. The officer sought the warrant in response to a call from the man's wife, then involved in a contentious divorce. Lawrence v. Ray, Civil Action No. 07-2812, 2008 U.S. District Lexis 81207 (D.N.J.).
     A man's guilty plea to possession of marijuana and use/possession of drug paraphernalia did not bar his claim that officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they detained him and searched his residence with a search warrant. The officers took their actions after a store security guard told them that the plaintiff had purchased "meth precursors." With that information, an officer detained the suspect at his home for four hours while a search warrant was being obtained. When the warrant arrived, marijuana and drug paraphernalia were found. The court reasoned that success on the claim that the detention or search were illegal did not necessarily imply the invalidity of the man's conviction, since the information provided by the security guard would have inevitably resulted in the discovery of the marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Additionally, the officers acted in good faith reliance on the warrant, which was issued by a neutral magistrate, and the evidence therefore could have been properly admitted even if the warrant lacked probable cause. Harper v. Jackson, No. 06-5658, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 17105 (6th Cir.).
     Factual issues existed as to whether the owner of a postal business center and commercial mail receiving agency ever affirmatively refused to provide forms concerning post office boxes on the premises requested by a police detective, or physically impeding the detective from obtaining the forms, justifying the obtaining of a search warrant for the premises and the subsequent arrest of the owner. Factual issues also existed as to whether the subsequent warrantless search of the owner's vehicle was constitutional. Henderson v. County of Los Angeles, No. 06-56039, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 20170 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
    Homeowner who claimed that officers severely injured her while beating her during a warrant-based search of her home could not pursue Fourteenth Amendment due process claims for excessive use of force since such claims may only be brought under the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiff also failed to adequately show that the city engaged in inadequate training, supervision, or disciplining of officers and that such inadequacies caused her injuries.  Torres v. City of Allentown, Civil No. 07-1934, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 50522 (E.D. Pa.).
     An arrestee was awarded $1 in nominal damages and $250,000 in punitive damages against a police officer in a lawsuit arising out of a shooting by an officer resulting in the death of her deaf-mute son. The lawsuit did not challenge the legality of the shooting, but claimed that officers improperly acted against the arrestee and her other surviving son following the shooting. The claims asserted included an allegedly unlawful search of the arrestee's house and false arrest. The appeals court upheld a reduction of the punitive damages to $5,000, finding that the jury's award was unconstitutionally excessive. The appeals court found that she did not present enough to create a triable issue concerning the county's alleged negligent training of the officers, and upheld a jury instruction limiting the plaintiff's claim for emotional distress damages to the distress experienced during the two days surrounding the incident. The appeals court also overturned an order denying the plaintiff attorneys' fees as a sanction for her attorney's failure to appear at a hearing, since he did not have any notice that a personal appearance was required. Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, No. 05-56118, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 18426 (9th Cir.).
     A warrantless search of land used for hunting purposes was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of a man who held a hunting license for the land, as the search was justified under the "open fields" doctrine and the "plain view" doctrine. The sheriff and other law enforcement personnel also had probable cause to believe that plants which the licensee had planted on the land (kenaf seed) in order to attract wildlife were marijuana, since they were "virtually indistinguishable" from marijuana plants. A claim for the alleged unlawful taking and destruction of the plants could not be pursued in the federal civil rights lawsuit since the plaintiff had not attempted to obtain compensation through existing adequate state law procedures. Waltman v. Payne, No. 05-60588, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14757 (5th Cir.).
      Married couple failed to show that officers violated their clearly established rights in allegedly seizing the husband's concealed weapon permit and guns from their home, so that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Their citing of general caselaw on the subject of warrantless searches of homes was insufficient to defeat the officers' claim for qualified immunity. The couple also failed to present any evidence that the officers were authorized to return the property they seized, as they demanded. Snider v. Lincoln County, No. 07-6196, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12116 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
     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.).
     County police officers, a city police officer, and an FBI agent were conducting surveillance on a street when they thought they saw a burglary in progress at a house. They entered the house, and encountered two children, one of whom they tackled, pointing a gun at his head, and using mace against him, while the second child watched. Other children were in a vehicle outside the home with their mother, and officers attempted to stop it. In a lawsuit brought by the mother and her six children, a federal trial court granted the FBI agent summary judgment on claims concerning the alleged seizure of the vehicle and its occupants, since there was no evidence that he was anywhere near the vehicle at the time, and could not be held vicariously liable for the alleged actions of the other defendants concerning the vehicle, since they did not act at his direction or even with his knowledge. The appeals court denied the motion by the FBI agent, the city officer, and one of the county officers for summary judgment on claims by one child who was inside the house for excessive use of force. The court ruled that the alleged spraying of the child with mace while two other defendants allegedly held guns to his head could constitute "excessive" use of force. Couden v. Duffey, No. 03-369, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9681 (D. Del.).
     Summary judgment was properly denied to the defendant in a lawsuit challenging the warrantless entry onto the plaintiff's property to conduct an inspection for suspected criminal violations of a land use ordinance. Rejecting the argument that the entry was part of an administrative inspection, the court noted that the purpose of the entry was also to attempt to find violations that could result in the imposition of criminal sanctions. Such criminal investigations may not be conducted within the curtilage of a person's home without a warrant, unless there are exigent circumstances. Jacob v. West Bloomfield, No. 07-1534, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 14185 (6th Cir.).
     A trial court improperly dismissed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming that a sheriff's investigator and a private citizen entered the plaintiff's barn and took two guns, which subsequently became the basis for revoking the plaintiff's probation. The private citizen was the one who took the guns from the barn and transported them, but the appeals court noted that the plaintiff alleged that the private citizen acted on the investigator's direction and instructions, so that his actions became state action, and his very purpose in being there was to assist the investigator. Further proceedings were therefore ordered. Radunz v. Bon Haden, No. 07-2726, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 13164 (Unpub. 7th Cir.).
     Exigent circumstances did not justify a warrantless entry into an arrestee's home as part of an investigation for spousal abuse. At the time of the search, under applicable Ninth Circuit law, the county's policy of allowing such a warrantless entry into a residence with the consent of a co-tenant, such as was obtained from the arrestee's wife at the time, was permissible. However, since the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently held otherwise, [In Georgia v. Randolph, #04-1067, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), where it held that officers' warrantless entry was unconstitutional where one co-tenant consented to entry and the other co-tenant refused], the court reasoned, the policy at issue was actually unconstitutional, and a "deliberate indifference" legal standard should have been applied to the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim concerning the warrantless entry. While the deputies obtained consent for the entry from the wife, the husband/arrestee denied consent. The arrestee was entitled to summary judgment on claims for warrantless entry and unlawful arrest. While the plaintiff was subsequently convicted of spousal abuse, the court rejected the argument that success in the immediate lawsuit would necessarily imply the invalidity of that conviction. Ohlsen v. County of San Joaquin, No. 2:06-cv-2361, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44566 (E.D. Cal.).
     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.).
     Success on his claims that law enforcement personnel engaged in activities intended to induce false statements to obtain search warrants for his house and person, to arrest him, and to use at his criminal trial would imply the invalidity of his conviction, which had not been overturned, an arrestee could not pursue his federal civil rights lawsuit. His lawsuit was barred under the principles set down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heck v. Humphrey, #93-6188, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Hindman v. Healy, No. 07-12931, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 10749 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
     A warrantless search of the area surrounding a shed where dogs were kept on a property did not violate the property owner's Fourth Amendment rights. The trees and bushes around the property did not limit access to or visibility of the shed from adjacent properties, and the shed was clearly meant for dogs and not for "intimate human activities," so that it was not within the curtilage of the owner's home, and there was no heightened expectation of privacy there. Simko v. Intravaia, No. 06-5369, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9417 (2nd Cir.).
     Disputed issues as to whether police officers heard a loud disturbance and an agitated voice coming from apartments in a building made summary judgment improper in a lawsuit contending that they violated the Fourth Amendment by entering the premises without a warrant. The issue was whether the officers reasonably believed that someone in the building was in imminent danger, justifying the warrantless entry. Kubicki v. Whitemarsh Township, No. 06-4905, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5864 (3rd Cir.).
     At the time that an officer made a warrantless entry into a woman's home to search for the subject of a civil commitment order, the law on whether such an order could constitute exigent circumstances to justify such an entry and search on the home of an unrelated third party's home was not clearly established. The officer, therefore, was entitled to qualified immunity. Bates v. Harvey, No. 07-10570, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4559 (11th Cir.).
     The son of a resident of a house was a fugitive, with a number of outstanding arrest warrants. The officers, believing that the son was hiding inside his father's home and lived there, approached the residence, and the father allegedly blocked their way as they attempted to enter. The officers handcuffed him and threw him into a chair, where he injured his back. Officers searched the home, but failed to find the son. A federal appeals court found that the entry was lawful under these circumstances, and that handcuffing the father and putting him in the chair was not an excessive use of force, based on his failure to cooperate with the officers. The father's unlawful arrest claim was also rejected, because he pled guilty to driving without a license. Covington v. Smith, No. 07-1744, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 601 (7th Cir.).
     A warrantless search of the plaintiff's hotel room, if it did violate the Fourth Amendment, did not violate a clearly established reasonable expectation of privacy, so that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiff could not rely on case law decided after the incident to defeat the defendants' defense of qualified immunity. Carter v. O'Malley, No. 06-35548, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6013 (9th Cir.).
     In a case where officers entered a home on the basis of a search warrant for the home next door, there was unquestionably a violation of the homeowners' Fourth Amendment constitutional rights, since there was no justification for entering this home. The officers, however, were entitled to qualified immunity because they made efforts which were reasonable, although insufficient, to identify the right house to search. The officers did not intentionally enter the wrong home, and terminated the search after discovering their mistake. There was a disputed issue as to whether one officer remained in the house too long after the mistake was discovered, but a jury found in his favor. Rogers v. Hooper, No. 07-40809, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6509 (5th Cir.).
     Deputy sheriff did not use excessive force or act unreasonably in detaining and tackling a man while a no-knock warrant to search for weapons and drugs was being executed on a neighbor's residence. The deputy tackled him and took him to the ground after he failed to get on the ground in response to a command. The deputy's belief that this use of force was needed was not unreasonable, based on the exigent circumstances of the quickly occurring situation. Chidester v. Utah County, No. 06-4255, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4918 (10th Cir.).
     When an arrestee's parents gave deputies permission to enter their home and remove him, their warrantless entry did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A jury returned an award for the deputies on the arrestee's excessive force claim. Zamora v. Smith, No. 05-15622, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3973 (9th Cir.).
     Law enforcement agents did not have a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances justifying their entry into a home after a prearranged delivery of a box they suspected contained narcotics. There was no evidence that the contents of the package were in danger of being disposed of, nor was there any threat to the officers. The owner of the home was entitled to partial summary judgment on his claims of unlawful entry by the defendants, who were denied qualified immunity. Demayo v. Nugent, No. 07-1623, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3759 (1st Cir.).
     A deputy sheriff's obtainment of consent to search a farm by threatening to detain a couple, the owners, while a warrant was sought for the search violated the Fourth Amendment, particularly since there was a "unique" coercive factor in that the deputy sheriff had also served as the attorney for the suspects. The deputy sheriff, however, was entitled to qualified immunity, as the illegality of this "unique" circumstance was not clearly established. The defendant was a reserve-force deputy as well as a lawyer, and had drafted the suspect couple's will twenty-eight months before. He subsequently participated in a search of their farm, during an investigation of marijuana allegedly being grown on their farm. Eidson v. Owens, No. 07-7007, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3149 (10th Cir.).
     Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on claims that they unlawfully entered a woman's home without consent or exigent circumstances while responding to a domestic disturbance call. At the time of their entry, the domestic dispute had allegedly been "neutralized" and there were no facts that would have caused the officers to believe that any one was in danger inside the home. The court also found that there was evidence from which a jury could find that an officer used excessive force in arresting the woman, causing her injuries at a time when she had not committed a crime and did not pose a threat to anyone. Campbell v. Clay, No. 07-13040, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2928 (11th 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.).
     A code enforcement officer for a town did not conduct a "search" of a landowner's property when he observed an alleged code violation (substantial improvements made to one of the owner's trailers without a building permit) from adjoining property while investigating a litter complaint. The officer was authorized to subsequently enter the owner's land to post a stop-work order, so that his entry to do so was not trespass. Woodhull v. Town of Riverhead, No. 2006-11179, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 12861 (A.D. 2nd Dept.).
     A warrantless search of a home, which had been the scene of a murder of a married couple, did not violate the Fourth Amendment when it was carried out with the consent of the couple's daughter, who was one of the executors of their estate. During the search of a storage room, a plastic container was found with bullets similar to those used to commit the murder, with the container owned by the son of the murdered husband. The evidence was subsequently used to obtain a warrant to search the son's apartment. In a lawsuit by the son, the court found that he did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the unlocked storage room or in property under the control of the decedents' estates. Warner v. McCunney, No. 05-5167, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 279 (3rd Cir.).
     City was properly held not liable, on the basis of two officers' warrantless entry into the plaintiffs' home through a closed but unlocked side door. The officers were looking for the daughter of one of the officers, who they thought might be at the home because she was dating the son of the woman who lived there. The city disciplined the officers and criminally prosecuted them, while refuting the allegation that it had a custom or policy that caused a constitutional violation by the officers. The officers were also acquitted in the state criminal proceeding because their conduct was found to fit within a state law emergency aid exception to the requirement of a warrant. McClendon v. City of Detroit, No. 05-2734, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 27692 (6th Cir.).
     Search warrant used to search family residence for an armed robbery suspect who had already been taken into custody was not supported by probable cause. Elliot v. Lator, No. 06-2006, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18976 (6th Cir.).
     Homeowner's claim that officers violated her rights in searching her home was barred when a judgment in her favor would have necessarily implied the invalidity of her guilty plea to a charge of violating a municipal code ordinance, and the homeowner did not state that the conviction had been overturned. Ray v. Tsunoda, No. 05-56879, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 20133 (9th Cir.).
     Plaintiff could proceed with his claim that officers who seized a moped from his living room while executing a search warrant unconstitutionally deprived him of his property without due process of law, since it was not within the scope of the search warrant. The seizure of $142 from the plaintiff's pocket, however, fell within the scope of the warrant since it authorized the seizure of property constituting evidence of drug transactions, including currency. Cooper v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 1:06-CV-161, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 81148 (N.D. Ind.).
     Deputy sheriffs found drugs in the study of a home while accompanying the girlfriend of a man who lived there. The girlfriend was moving out and had gained access to the study through the use of a bolt cutter. She had summoned the officers because she thought her boyfriend had hidden some of her belongings in his locked study, and was fearful that he would return to the residence and harm her. While the search of the study was unreasonable because the girlfriend did not have authority to consent to it, the law on the subject at the time was not clearly established, and the deputies could have reasonably believed that she had authority to consent, so that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Moore v. Andreno, No. 06-3623, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24649 (2nd Cir.).
     A man initially convicted of rape and other crimes, and subsequently found not guilty on retrial, failed to show that his home was searched after a search warrant for the premises had expired, or that the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant when they searched a bedroom occupied by his roommate. The mere fact that the plaintiff had a roommate did not cause his home to be converted into a multi-unit building or apartment house, so that the warrant for the premises authorized the search of the entire home. Durham v. McElynn, No. 07-1857, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 24496 (3rd Cir.).
     After a patron of an auto business complained that the vehicle identification number (VIN) on a car he bought there did not match the car's VIN sticker, officers carried out an administrative search of the business, detaining its employees for 10 hours, searching employees, advancing with drawn weapons, seizing 150 cars, and seizing voluminous records. A federal appeals court ruled that the limited scope of an administrative search was exceeded, and that the "massive" show of force presented by the officers was more typical of a criminal raid, which requires a search warranty. There were also disputed issues as to whether or not the search was part of an "illegal plan" designed to oust the business from the area. Bruce v. Beary, No. 06-15304, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21283 (11th Cir.).
     Officers had probable cause to believe that a landowner had threatened to commit a crime of violence when he had previously told them that he would do "whatever" he had to do to "protect" his purported property rights in connection with a dispute between him and a developer, and he had also previously displayed firearms to the developer's employees. They had probable cause to obtain an arrest warrant and search warrant, particularly after the landowner stated that they were not taking actions needed to avoid "a bloodbath" occurring as a result of the dispute. A search warrant obtained for the home of the landowner's mother's home, however, was not supported by probable cause, as he had not recently lived there, and there was no allegation that any weapons were stored there, so further proceedings were required on claims arising out of that particular search warrant. Walczyk v. Rio, No. 04-5711, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18255 (2nd Cir.).
     A woman shot by police officers who came to her apartment after she allegedly threatened to kill herself with a shotgun failed to show that the search of her apartment violated her civil rights under Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 52.1. That statute requires, for liability, that constitutional rights be violated as a result of a threat, intimidation, or coercion, which was not shown, even if the plaintiff could show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the search did not take place until two hours after the plaintiff had been taken to the hospital for treatment of her wounds, so that the use of force was not related to the search. A federal appeals court upheld the jury's verdict for the city and police officers on claims of both excessive use of force and under the California statute. Jackson v. City of Fresno, No. 05-16857, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11838 (9th Cir.).
     Officers trying to apprehend a potentially armed suspect, with probable cause to arrest him for assault, did not violate the rights of a woman and her daughter when they entered the yard surrounding the building containing their apartment, and inserted a rifle in the interior of the mother's bedroom. The woman and her daughter did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the front yard of the building so that entry into the yard did not violate their Fourth Amendment rights. Any seizure of the mother and daughter which could be found to have occurred was also found to be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The officers' actions allegedly included pointing weapons at the mother and daughter and telling them to return to the apartment. Reeves v. Churchich, No. 04-4240, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 9301 (10th Cir.).
     Defendant officers who conducted a raid on the plaintiff's home were not entitled to summary judgment since they allegedly entered his residence without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances, and based only on the invitation of their informant. There was no legal basis for the informant being able to invite police officers into the home merely on the basis that he had been invited to enter. The defendant officers were not entitled to qualified immunity under the circumstances. Callahan v. Millard County, No. 06-4135, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 16853 (10th Cir.).
     In a lawsuit by apartment tenants challenging the searches of their residences under administrative search warrants issued by a city, a federal appeals court upheld the validity of the warrants. Under the city's ordinance, the administrative warrants, used to perform inspections of buildings were issued without a showing of probable cause that a particular building might contain code violations. The issue, the court found, was whether the scheme of inspections adopted by the ordinance was based on reasonable administrative or legislative standards and served valid public purposes. Whether there were or were not violations in the particular buildings or not was not relevant to that analysis, according to the court. Jones v. Wildgen, No. 06-3384, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18008 (10th Cir.).
     The defense of qualified immunity available to officers in federal civil rights lawsuits filed under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 does not apply to claims arising out of the same incident asserted in a California state law civil rights lawsuit filed under Cal. Civil Code Sec. 52.1 for interference with statutory or constitutional rights. The case involved claims that deputies acted improperly in connection with the plaintiffs' detention, the search and seizure of their car, and the subsequent search of their home. While the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on a federal civil rights claim because certain actions, even if unlawful, were "reasonable mistakes," an intermediate California appeals court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity does not apply as to the California state civil rights claim, requiring further proceedings. Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, No. B186764, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 1267 (Cal. App.).
     A police detective was entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that he had unlawfully made a warrantless entry into an apartment. When he went to the apartment to investigate a suspicion that the tenant's son had been involved in an armed robbery, he saw that the door was slightly ajar, and the door also had marks that could have been made by the use of burglary tools. This, and the fact that footsteps were heard from inside made it reasonable for the detective to believe that a break-in was occurring, providing exigent circumstances to enter. Dockery v. Doyle, No. 06-15513, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12279 (11th Cir.).
     Officers who searched the plaintiff's house without a warrant were entitled to qualified immunity because the information they had at the time of their entry indicated to them that a number of her dogs, seen and heard barking inside the apparently uninhabited, partially renovated house, lacking heat and electricity on a cold day, were in urgent need of assistance. There was no clearly established law as to whether officers could make a warrantless entry into a home to provide emergency assistance to animals. Shapiro v. City of Glen Cove, No. 05-3827, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12138 (2nd Cir.).
     Fire inspectors and deputies executing a valid inspection warrant for a building were entitled to detain a man on the premises while doing so. They did not violate his rights by then issuing him a citation, even though his wife held the title to the property, because the city's fire code allowed them to issue citations to any responsible person on the premises. The plaintiff also failed to show that the inspection was substantially motivated by his prior litigation against the city. Vaccaro v. Carson City, No. 05-15843, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 10930 (9th Cir.).
     An officer who entered the plaintiff's bedroom without a warrant had an objectively reasonable good-faith belief that he had obtained a valid consent to search the bedroom from the plaintiff's father, and to take whatever items he needed. Additionally, there was no evidence to show that the bedroom door was locked before the officer entered, or that the officer had any reason to believe that the father did not share authority over the bedroom. Hughes v. Coconut Creek Police Department, No. 06-14537, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12074 (11th Cir.).
     Plaintiff failed to show that a police officer assisted and conspired with two private citizens to burglarize her home and steal her possessions. While the officer was shown to have met with one of the private citizens on the morning of the burglary, evidence showed that the meeting involved a complaint about a separate crime. Any allegation that the officer had prior knowledge of the plans for the burglary were simply "unsubstantiated speculation." Ostensen v. Suffolk County, No. 05-4456, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12183 (2nd 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.).
     Law enforcement officials, including federal employees, did not violate a homeowner's Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his residence to try to find his son, the subject of three arrest warrants, because they reasonably believed that the house was also where the son resided and that the son was then at home, despite the fact that he was ultimately not found during the search. The officers also did not use excessive force in handcuffing the homeowner and making him sit down during the search. Covington v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 05-1204, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16872 (C.D. Ill.).
     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.)
     Police officers were not authorized to make warrantless regulatory inspections of bars under regulatory scheme, so that trial court improperly granted dismissal of bar owner's Fourth Amendment claims. The plaintiff, however, failed to show that the township police department had a custom of raiding establishments owned by or associated with African-Americans. Watson v. Abington Township, No. 05-4133, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3485 (3rd Cir.).
     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.).
     D.E.A. agents who entered a drug suspect's house without a warrant and then allegedly stripped him of his clothes, and sprayed him with a fire hose for 15 minutes in temperatures below freezing were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. The agents did so after a confidential informant who had entered the house, where a methamphetamine lab was suspected, started complaining about chemical fumes and coughing, and they were afraid he had been exposed to some noxious chemicals. This gave them exigent circumstances to enter the house, and probable cause to suspect that the lab was in fact located there. Their actions with respect to the suspect were justified by their fear that toxic chemicals had saturated his clothing, and their desire to avoid exposing others to these chemicals. Glover v. Eight Unknown D.E.A. Agents/Drug Task Force Agents, No. 06-13061, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 3948 (11th Cir.).[N/R]
     Any "exigent circumstances" which existed after the controlled delivery of a "suspicious" package to a residence was deliberately created by law enforcement, so that entry into the home without a search warrant or arrest warrant, combined with a "protective sweep" of the premises was not justified. The officers, however, were entitled to qualified immunity as no prior case law had ruled on the specific narrow issue presented, so that the law on the subject was not "clearly established." Demayo v. Nugent, Civil Action No. 06-11510, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11847 (D. Mass.).[N/R]
     Officer who went to a home to investigate a 911 call which came from there had voluntary consent from a resident to enter to see that everything there was ok. The officer did not exceed the scope of the consent given, and left after approximately one and a half minutes, so that there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. Owens v. Town of Delhi, No. 06-0057, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1246 (W.D. La.). [N/R]
     Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent was entitled to qualified immunity for forcibly seizing a small recording tape while searching a residence. The woman from whom he seized it was present and stated that she was closely related to the occupants of the house, and placed the tape in her mouth to prevent him from obtaining it after telling him that she did not want the police to hear it. While the presence of the tape, by itself, might not be suspicious, the woman's actions and statements created a suspicion that it contained evidence of crime justifying its seizure. Cooper v. Bonaventura, No. 7:06CV00053, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5126 (W.D. Va.). [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]
     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]
     Officers did not violate the rights of a barbershop owner, a barber, or customers of the business when they came into the premises with their guns drawn in a "low-ready" position after being told that a suspect sought in a shooting had run into the barbershop. Under the circumstances, their brief detentions of the occupants of the business or of a barber standing outside the shop did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The officers reasonably believed that they needed to protect themselves against potential danger. Halsell v. Etter, No. 05-4577, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31216 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
     Exigent circumstances supported an officer's entry without a warrant in a home while chasing the homeowner's son, who he allegedly saw selling drugs, when he was motivated by a desire to apprehend the suspect and protect the occupants of the residence. The officer was also justified in arresting the homeowner for allegedly pushing the officer when he entered the home. Sargent v. Idle, No. 06-1780, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30144 (7th Cir.). [N/R]
     Officers' claim on appeal that a federal civil rights lawsuit verdict against them for warrantless entry into a woman home, and use of excessive force by an officer was not adequately supported by the evidence was frivolous, and officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The officers entered without a warrant based on a neighbor's concern the homeowner's ex-wife was inside and was not entitled to be there. The officers allegedly did not announce themselves, confronted the woman inside by placing a gun near her head, and left, saying "never mind" after she convinced them that she owned the home, having received ownership through the divorce proceeding. Award of $27,000 in compensatory damages and $111,000 in punitive damages upheld. Frunz v. City of Tacoma, No. 05-35302, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 28071 (9th Cir.). [N/R]
     A county's requirement that welfare applicants all agree to warrantless home visits in order to be eligible for benefits did not violate the U.S. or California Constitutions, or state welfare regulations. Sanchez v. County of San Diego, No. 04-55122, 464 F.3d 916 (9th Cir.). [N/R]
     Landowner could pursue federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that the city and another entity conspired to publish a map which falsely showed that a public trail crossed her property, failed to correct it once the error became known, and that private persons, encouraged and aided by the defendants, then trespassed onto her land. Presley v. City of Charlottesville, No. 05-2344, 464 F.3d 480 (4th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     While executing a search warrant investigating the alleged sale of drugs from a man's garage, there was no reasonable justification for keeping the suspect outside during the search with his genitals allegedly exposed for an hour. Under the circumstances, there was no possibility that he would either arm himself or destroy any evidence once he was under the officers' control. Additionally, if the facts were as alleged, it would be clear to any reasonable officer that these actions were illegal, so that the officers' were not entitled to qualified immunity. The appeals court did uphold, however, summary judgment for three officers not directly involved in the alleged rights violation. Macias v. County of Los Angeles, No. B 182831, 2006 Cal. App. Lexis 1684 (Cal. App. 2nd Dist.). [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]
     In a lawsuit against a fire captain for warrantless entry into a multi-unit building owner's apartment as part of an inspection for fire warning devices, he was not entitled to qualified immunity, based on a factual issue as to whether a reasonable officer would have realized, under the circumstances, that the door he went through did not go to a common area of the building, but instead into a private apartment. Gayda v. City of Nashua, No. 05-cv-244, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73465 (D.N.H.). [N/R]
     Officers' entry into a home without a warrant or consent was justified by their reasonable belief that there might be a minor inside the residence in need of immediate assistance because of possible alcohol poisoning. Hardesty v. Hamburg Township, No. 05-1346, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 22441 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Nov]
     While officers executing an arrest warrant in a home may perform a protective sweep incident to the arrest in order to protect themselves or others, if they continued searching through the house and garage after the arrest for the purpose of finding more than was in plain view, this would violate the Fourth Amendment. Higdon v. Wells County Sheriff's Office, No. 1:04-CV-064, 426 F. Supp. 2d 854 (N.D. Ind. 2006). [N/R]
     Officers did not violate the rights of the parents of a shooting victim when they entered the house as part of their investigation of the shooting. Any improper entrance into the premises by third parties during the officers' presence was, at most negligence, which could not be the basis for a federal civil rights claim. Smith v. Busby, No. 04-3544, 172 Fed. Appx. 123 (8th Cir. 2006). [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]
     The finding that the occupant of a home voluntarily consented to a warrantless entry at nighttime barred a claim that the officer's entry violated his rights, despite her argument that she was ill and "confused" at the time of the incident, in the absence of any showing that the officer coerced her consent. Stone v. Town of Westport, No. 3:04CV18, 411 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D. Conn. 2006). [N/R]
     Police officers, including S.W.A.T team members, were entitled to qualified immunity for surrounding the home of a man who had fired shots into the air and ground nearby, entering the home forcibly without a warrant, and using pepper gas and a flashbang in an attempt to flush him out. Assuming that the use of a second flashbang, which burned down the house, was excessive, it still did not violate any "clearly established right." Factual disputes about whether the suspect was still armed and was threatening officers at the time they shot and killed him, however, barred qualified immunity for the officers on a claim that the use of deadly force was excessive. Estate of Bing v. City of Whitehall, No. 05-3889, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 19287 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Sep]
     Property owner's claims that officers searched his property without warrants, failed to notify him before the search, and unlawfully seized items of his property appeared to be baseless, when the officers provided evidence of the search warrants issued, the basis for obtaining the warrants, and that they both gave him notice of the search before they conducted it, and gave him copies of the search warrants afterwards. The plaintiff, by contrast, presented nothing in opposition but his own unsworn and unnotarized statement repeating his claims, entitling the defendants to summary judgment. Holt v. Blakley, No. 05-13245, 167 Fed. Appx. 86 (11th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     A warrantless search of a home belonging to a probationer after he allegedly violated a condition of his probation was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The probationer had agreed to make himself available for such searches while on probation, and this made the search of his home reasonable. Carroll v. Barnack, No. 05-2412, 166 Fed. Appx. 866 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Warrantless entry into a suspect's house was supported by exigent circumstances when the suspect shoved one officer and attempted to shut the door on him, and the suspect was creating a disturbance giving rise to a belief that he posed a danger to officers and others. Davis v. Township of Paulsboro, No. 02-CV-3659, 421 F. Supp. 2d 835 (D.N.J. 2006). [N/R]
    Deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity for making an entry into a home without consent or exigent circumstances to make a warrantless arrest of a resident. Bashir v. Rockdale County, GA, No. 05-12020, 445 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2006). [2006 LR Jul]
     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]
     Police officers' warrantless entry into backyard and residence were justified by reports of gunshots coming from the home and the failure of the residents inside to respond to knocks on the door. Causey v. City of Bay City, No. 05-1142, 442 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2006). [2006 LR Jun]
     Even if police officers were "intruding" into the curtilage of the suspect's home by speaking to his mother and brother on the home's porch, and even if they were trespassing by staying after the brother asked them to leave, this did not constitute an illegal search. The suspect's expectations of privacy were "minimal" when his mother and brother voluntarily talked to the officers while standing in front of an open door. Murphy v. Gardner, No. 02CV01918, 413 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (D. Colo. 2006). [N/R]
     Police officers did not violate the rights of two Arkansas business owners by seizing electronic machines from their premises which including poker and blackjack games, based on a prosecutor's reasonable, although mistaken, advice that they were illegal under state law. They also were not required to obtain a warrant for the seizure of the machines, which were in plain view inside the businesses. Skokos v. Rhoades, No. 05-2374 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5962 (8th Cir.). [2006 LR May]
     Owners of family-run convenience food and liquor store failed to show that repeated inspections of their premises either violated their Fourth Amendment rights or their right to equal protection, despite supposed illegitimate motive of driving them out of business so that the property could be purchased for use by a larger retailer. Aida Food and Liquor, Inc. v. City of Chicago, No. 05-2059, 439 F.3d 397 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR May]
     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]
     Police officers' warrantless entry into apartment was justified by exigent circumstances concerning reported drug overdose and the search conducted was justified by the need to find pill bottles in order to know which drugs had been taken in order to provide medical assistance. Winchester v. Cosaineau, No. 04-CV-00053, 404 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (D. Colo. 2005). [N/R]
     Officers violated home occupant's constitutional rights when the evidence was sufficient to establish that they continued to detain her after all tasks carried out incident to the search of the residence under a warrant had been completed. Mena v. City of Simi Valley, No. 01-56673, 156 Fed. Appx. 24 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer could have believed that there were exigent circumstances justifying a search of a house for a suspected murderer in order to protect other innocent persons from further harm. Federal appeals court further rules that officers were entitled to qualified immunity for detention of homeowner in handcuffs for an hour during the search of the residence. Bills v. City of Rialto, No. 03-56212, 157 Fed. Appx. 981 (9th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     No exigent circumstances existed to support a warrantless entry into a motel room without consent, so that the arrestee stated a valid claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights in alleging that an officer deceived him into opening the door to the room and then forcibly entered the room and arrested him for alleged involvement in the theft of a car. Butler v. Compton, No. 05-1230, 158 Fed. Appx. 108 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officers executing search warrant for drugs in house did not violate the Fourth Amendment by ordering a female occupant of the residence out of the shower and watching while she dressed in a robe and other clothes. The court found that the officers did not act unreasonably in light of the fact that the search concerned suspected narcotics distribution and concerns about protecting the safety of other officers by not leaving an individual unsecured. The court also noted that there were no allegations of "inappropriate touching or comments." Skover v. Titchenell, No. 04-71523, 408 F. Supp. 2d 445 (E.D. Mich. 2005). [N/R]
     A judgment debtor's wife's Fourth Amendment rights were violated if, as she claimed, Deputy U.S. Marshals entered her home and seized her property under an expired writ issued to satisfy a judgment. A reasonable officer would have known that a search and seizure of a resident under an expired writ would not comply with Fourth Amendment requirements. Bernstein v. Roberts, No. Civ.A. 02-133, 405 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2005). [N/R]
     Factual issues as to whether officer had kicked down a motel apartment door, entered, and struck the occupant without an arrest or search warrant barred summary judgment for officer in resident's lawsuit for excessive use of force and unlawful entry. Goins v. City of Detroit, No. 03-CV-74758, 408 F. Supp. 2d 387 (E.D. Mich. 2005). [N/R]
     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]
     Conservation officer who was lawfully on the premises did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the owner of a recreational cabin by looking into the window in order to check for a possible intruder. His basis for his action was a laudable goal of "community caretaking." Taylor v. Humphries, No. 1:03-CV-225, 402 F. Supp. 2d 840 (W.D. Mich. 2005). [N/R]
     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]
     City's ordinance authorizing warrantless inspections of rental units unless tenants object did not violate the constitutional rights of landlords, as landlords had no reasonable expectation of privacy in units rented to either residential or commercial tenants. In instances where the landlords are themselves the tenants, the ordinance would be interpreted as also requiring their consent or a warrant. City of Vincennes v. Emmons, No. 42S02-0504-CV-131, 2006 Ind. Lexis 54 (2006). [2006 LR Mar]
     Defendant police officers who were not directly involved in an allegedly illegal search of a suspect's home could not be held liable for violations of his civil rights. Evidence was also lacking that a defendant police sergeant had given any improper instructions to the officers who did conduct the search. Adams v. City of Auburn Hills, No. 03-2421, 141 Fed. Appx. 446 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     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]
     Officers' observation of obscured vehicle registration sticker on license plate gave them probable cause to stop truck for investigation, even if their real motivation was to investigate a 9-1-1 call concerning the driver of a truck allegedly taking photos of a little girl walking in the area. No reasonable jury could have found that they lacked probable cause for the stop or that the motorist's subsequent consent to the search of his truck and home was coerced. Davis v. Novy, No. 04-4096 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 265 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Feb]
     While officers who made a warrantless entry into a suspect's home may have been justified, if, as they contended, she committed a misdemeanor in their presence, and they were in "fresh pursuit" of her, they failed to state an adequate justification for their second warrantless entry, which was subsequent to the arrest, so that the home residents were entitled to a trial on the merits on their claim that the second warrantless entry violated their rights and constituted a trespass. Bittner v. Huth, No. 2395, 876 A.2d 157 (Md. App. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer's videotaping of a traffic stop, and of a subsequent search of the motorist's home, did not violate any clearly established right of the motorist, who was stopped for speeding. The officer was also entitled to qualified immunity for asking the driver whether he would be willing to submit to a search of his person, vehicle and home, which revealed marijuana in his pocket. While the drugs were suppressed during a criminal prosecution against the motorist on the basis that the consent given was not voluntary, the federal appeals court ruled that a reasonable officer, under the circumstances, could have believed that the consent was consensual. The Vermont Supreme Court ordered further proceedings, however, as to whether officers engaged in unnecessarily destructive behavior of the motorist's property during the search of his home, and whether they violated his rights when, following the initial search of his home, they returned and allegedly forced their way in again over his wife's objections. Sprague v. Nally, No. 03-489, 882 A.2d 1164 (Vt. 2005). [N/R]
    Warrantless housing code and property tax inspections of the exterior of a house in a remote rural setting were not a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Widgren v. Maple Grove, No. 04-2189, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 24656 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Jan]
     Genuine issues of material fact as to whether officers executing a search warrant at a residence knocked and announced themselves before entering, and whether they acted maliciously in damaging property barred summary judgment for them in civil rights lawsuit. They did not, however, act unreasonably in handcuffing a resident found on the premises during the search for drugs and weapons. Notice v. Koshes, No. Civ.A.3:03CV1484, 386 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Conn. 2005). [N/R]
     In a lawsuit concerning the strip-searching of an adult and seven children during a warrant-based search of an apartment for drugs, trial judge's reply to jury's question about municipal liability was not erroneous. Jury's verdict for defendant city upheld on appeal. Quiles v. Kilson, No. 05-1026, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 22741 (1st Cir.). [2005 LR Dec]
     While there were factual issues as to whether a homeowner and his children were unlawfully detained and whether protective sweep of premises by deputies while executing eviction order was unlawful, the deputies were not liable for private movers' alleged theft of some of the homeowner's private property while removing it from the premises. There was no evidence that the deputies either saw the alleged misappropriation or that they conspired with the movers to accomplish it. Thomas v. Sheahan, No. 04C4865, 370 F. Supp. 2d 704 (N.D. Ill. 2005). [N/R]
     Police detective could reasonably have believed that he had probable cause to arrest a suspected drug dealer and convicted felon believed to be in possession of weapons, and to use force in doing so, based on information obtained from confidential informants, and was therefore entitled to qualified immunity for doing so. Appeals court also upholds searches of suspect's two apartments, based on telephone confirmation of issuance of search warrant in one case, and consent of co-occupant on the other. Burrell v. McIlroy, #02-15114, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 20060 (9th Cir.). [2005 LR Nov]
     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]
     Officer who entered a residence without a warrant to "make sure everything is ok" was entitled to qualified immunity based on a complaint concerning noise coming from within, the fact that no one responded to his knock, an unlocked door, and his knowledge of past disturbances and domestic violence incidents between the resident and her sister, and numerous other episodes of "eccentric" interaction between the resident and law enforcement during the past five to six month period. Burr v. Hasbrouck Heights Police Department, No. 04-1121, 131 Fed. Appx. 799 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     City's inspection of dance clubs for fire code violations, building code violations, and under-age drinking were not Fourth Amendment "searches" when they took place while the clubs were open to the public for business, and inspectors did not go beyond the areas where the club's customers could go. 1064 Old River Road, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, No. 04-3541, 137 Fed. Appx. 760 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officers' entry onto property to allegedly abate nuisances (such as housing code violations and drug activity) under a non-criminal administrative search warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment when it was issued by a court that lacked jurisdiction from any statute or municipal code section to issue it. Individuals who relied on the warrant, however, were entitled to qualified immunity, when prior case law concerning the invalidity of such warrants involved only state and not federal law. Factual issues remained, however, concerning whether the city could be held liable, under the circumstances, for federal civil rights violations. Bosteder v. City of Renton, No. 74934-5, 117 P.3d 316 (Wash. en banc. 2005). [N/R]
     Officer did not violate rights of deceased man's girlfriend when he ordered her to stay outside the dead man's home while allowing the decedent's widow, who had been separated from him before his death, to enter and search the house and remove her property. The girlfriend, as a mere guest of the decedent, had no possessory interest in the house, and the officer was acting in a reasonable manner to merely keep the peace, rather than actively collaborating with the wife. Ostensen v. Suffolk County, No. 01-CV-05625, 378 F. Supp. 2d 140 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     Officers who allegedly knocked and announced their presence "simultaneously" with breaching the door to a residence to execute a search warrant were not entitled to qualified immunity in homeowner's lawsuit. Michalik v. Hermann , No. 03-30780, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 17529 (5th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
     Parole agents who allegedly entered a home where a parolee resided in a rented room, without a warrant and without knocking and announcing their identity and purpose, were not entitled to qualified immunity. If the facts were as the plaintiff homeowner and his girlfriend claimed, the entry in this manner was an invasion of their privacy in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Green v. Butler, No. 04-2993, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18141 (7th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
     Seizure of trailers from a field on a man's property, even if the administrative warrant used to do so was invalid, did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights when the field was not within the curtilage of his home and the public could both view and access the area. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Bleavins v. Bartels, No. 04-2415, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 17212 (7th Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
     Police officer who ordered a landlord to open a door to an apartment so that a woman's ex-boyfriend could retrieve his possessions was not entitled to qualified immunity on woman's claim that he violated her Fourth Amendment rights by becoming actively involved in an ex parte private repossession. Harvey v. Plains Township, No. 04-1148, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 18756 (3d Cir.). [2005 LR Oct]
     Officers had exigent circumstances to enter a house without waiting for the occupant, a suspected methamphetamine drug dealer, to answer, based on various evidence giving them reason to believe that he was likely to be armed. Officers also did not act unreasonably in returning the suspect's gunshots, and suspect could not assert a claim for excessive use of force when he was not struck by the officers' bullets. Cabell v. Rousseau, No. 04-1258, 130 Fed. Appx. 803 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer who entered and searched a home without a warrant and arrested the homeowner for resisting the search was entitled to qualified immunity when a reasonable officer would have believed that the entry was justified by a radio dispatch indicating that that another officer was pursuing a criminal suspect fleeing on foot in the vicinity of the residence. Payne v. City of Olive Branch, No. 04-60125, 130 Fed. Appx. 656 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     City health inspectors and police officers did not need a warrant to enter homeowner's front yard in connection with complaints concerning sanitary conditions there based on her keeping of up to nineteen dogs on the premises when the property was not fenced in, and was viewable by the public, as she had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the yard under those circumstances. Esmont v. City of New York, No. CV025560, 371 F. Supp. 2d 202 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
     Officers were not entitled to summary judgment in lawsuit for unlawful entry into home when that entry and the seizure of a resident were not supported by a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. Cummings v. City of Akron, No. 03-3259, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 14950 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
     Officers had exigent circumstances justifying their warrantless entry into an apartment when they observed an occupant within through an open doorway jump up from a table and run to the back of the residence with a clear plastic bag containing a white powder substance. The officers reasonably believed that the occupant was attempting to destroy contraband. Harris v. Lee, #04-30027, 127 Fed. Appx. 710 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     City code enforcement officers were not liable for federal civil rights violations for evicting two elderly residents from their home without a pre-eviction hearing. The officers had the legal authority to issue emergency vacate orders, and had grounds to do so in light of the residents keeping 33 dogs and four birds in the two bedroom house, which was allegedly in an unsanitary condition. Sell v. City of Columbus, No. 03-4654, 127 Fed. Appx. 754 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     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]
     Officers' warrantless entry into home was justified by exigent circumstances when they were told that a minor might be consuming alcohol at home, no one responded to their knock on the front door, and they could observe, through a back window, minors who did not respond to yelling or knocking on patio door. Officers could, under the circumstances, reasonably fear for the safety of the minors based on possible alcohol poisoning. Galindo v. Town of Silver City, No. 03-2134, 127 Fed. Appx. 459 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     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]
     Arrestee whose murder conviction was upheld on appeal was barred from pursuing his federal civil rights lawsuit over the warrantless search of his apartment and storage locker when he had a "full and fair" opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment issues involved in those searches in his criminal trial, and it was determined that those searches were lawful. Simpson v. Rowan, No. 04-1897, 125 Fed. Appx. 720 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Police chief should have known that the warrantless seizure of 70 "derelict" vehicles from salvage yard property was unlawful and that ordinance providing for such seizures without pre- or post-deprivations hearings violated due process. His supposed reliance on the ordinance and consultation with a city attorney did not excuse him from knowing the applicable law. Lawrence v. Reed, No. 04-8030, 406 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Jul]
     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]
     The question of whether police officers were entitled to qualified immunity on their warrantless entry into home, during which they gave breath tests to all minors present depended on a disputed factual issue of whether they were seeking to achieve law enforcement objectives or else merely to ensure the welfare of the children present. Accordingly the appeals court could not resolve the issue of qualified immunity on appeal. Strutz v. Hall, No. 04-1451, 124 Fed. Appx. 939 (6th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     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]
     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]
     Federal appeals court overturns summary judgment in favor of town constable in civil rights lawsuit claiming that he broke into man's apartment unlawfully and left eviction papers on the kitchen floor. Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence supporting his claim that he was not home at the time the constable claimed to have personally served him with the papers to survive a motion for summary judgment. Coon v. Town of Springfield, No. 02-7518, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 6160 (2d Cir.). [2005 LR Jun]
     Officers were not justified in entering a home without a search warrant to purportedly search for persons who might be in need of assistance after they were informed that a number of gunshots had allegedly come from the home's backyard, since they had no specific facts which would give a reasonable officer a basis to believe that someone inside had been wounded. Causey v. City of Bay City, No. 02-CV-10318, 353 F. Supp. 2d 864 (E.D. Mich. 2005). [N/R]
     Subjecting a homeowner, following a search of his home and his arrest for dealing in harmful materials to a minor and a drug offense, to a "perp walk" resulting in him being photographed as he was led from his home to a police vehicle did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The media representatives did not enter the homeowner's property, and the officers' actions were reasonable, since the residence may have been used to victimize young women and expose them to sex and drugs. Publication of the photos of the arrestee's face could help alert other possible victims and encourage them to provide information to aid the investigation. Gibbons v. Lambert, No. 2:02 CV 01244, 358 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D. Utah 2005). [N/R]
     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]
     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]
     Officers did not act unreasonably by entering an apartment without knocking, searching the premises, and attempting to awaken a naked man found on a bed inside when there were signs of what appeared to be a possible burglary, including a broken window. Leaf v. Shelnutt, No. 04-1318, 400 F.3d 1070 (7th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR May]
     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]
     Incidental damage to a house resulting from deputies' entry to execute a search warrant, and accidental injuries suffered by a resident at the moment of entry were not violations of the Fourth Amendment. Appeals court also rules that the alleged actions of the deputies in detaining the residents in a living room for a period of time between two and three hours was not unreasonable, nor did it become unreasonable because the deputies allegedly, at some point during that time period, refused to allow access to the bathroom and/or denied one resident's request to take medicine. Steele v. County of Los Angeles, No. 01-57183, 117 Fed. Appx. 507 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Police could reasonably believe that they had exigent circumstances sufficient to support a warrantless entry into a home based on their knowledge that there were minors drinking liquor in a home and their observation, through a window, that an individual inside was not responding to a bright light shined onto his face, a ringing phone, or knocking on the door and window. Court also finds that a deck attached to the home was not part of the home's curtilage, so that the officers' warrantless entry onto it did not violate the homeowners' rights. Further, even if it did, the officers were still entitled to qualified immunity, as their entry onto the deck did not violate clearly established law. Hardesty v. Hamburg Township, No. CIV.03-72054, 352 F. Supp. 2d 823 (E.D. Mich. 2005). [N/R]
     State environmental agents did not violate a property owner's Fourth Amendment rights by entering his land without permission or a warrant to try to perform a regulatory inspection, in response to his own application for a permit to carry out construction on state regulated tidal wetlands. Palmieri v. Lynch, No. 03-9038, 392 F.3d 73(2d Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Apr]
     Federal food safety inspectors from the USDA were not subject to federal civil rights lawsuits in connection with their actions concerning a meat packing company's facilities. Nebraska Beef v. Greening, No. 04-1918, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 3368 (8th Cir.). [2005 LR Apr]
     While the officers' alleged conduct in staying in a home searched under a warrant for 7-1/4 hours, while keeping all residents in handcuffs for several hours in their underwear appeared to be unreasonable under a prior appeals court decision, Leveto v. Lapina, 258 F.3d 165 (3rd Cir. 2000), the search in question took place over two years before the Leveto decision, so that the officers did not violate clearly established law and were entitled to qualified immunity. Kerusenko v. New Jersey, #03-3556, 115 Fed. Appx. 583 (3rd Cir. 2004). Editor's Note: In Leveto, the court ruled that an 8-hour search carried out as part of an investigation for tax evasion where the plaintiff was detained at his place of business, restricted in his communication with others during the search, and interrogated during a period of six hours, was unreasonable and amounted to a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. [N/R]
     Officers had sufficient exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry into an apartment based on neighbors' reports of hearing a woman's scream and "sounds of a struggle." Foutz v. The City of West Valley City, No. 2:03 CV 1116, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (D. Utah 2004). [N/R]
     Officers who entered a home without a warrant and then shot a suspect inside as he descended from a hiding place holding a machete had exigent circumstances justifying their actions. The suspect had allegedly already assaulted several people with the machete and had threatened to chop up his cousin's small dog. Additionally, he fled from officers to his house, and refused to obey orders to drop the machete. Cuffy v. Van Horn, No. 03-3517, 112 Fed. Appx. 438 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     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]
     EPA inspectors who, exceeding the scope of consent given, took wastewater samples from manhole located on privately owned road near manufacturing mill did not violate the rights of the business. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in such wastewater when it was flowing towards the public sewer system in a manner making it similar to abandoned trash put out for collection. Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Pimpare, No. 04-1626, 392 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Mar]
     Genuine issues of material fact as to whether man fleeing into house following confrontation with officers appeared to make a threatening gesture precluded summary judgment for officers in lawsuit claiming that they made an unlawful warrantless entry into the house. If the officers could reasonably believe that he made a "gun gesture" with his hand and reached toward his waistband, and that this was a threat to the officers and the crowd there in general, they could justify the warrantless entry on the basis of "hot pursuit." Webster v. City of New York, No. 03 CIV. 0524, 333 F. Supp. 2d 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
     Building inspector was not entitled to qualified immunity for his nonconsensual warrantless entry into business premises not open to the public after business hours, or on claims that he did so in retaliation for the business owners' association with a member of the Village council in violation of their First Amendment rights. Mimics, Inc. v. Village of Angel Fire, No. 03-2214, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 15 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Feb]
     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]
     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]
     Prior dismissal of a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the alleged intentional destruction of computer equipment and data seized during the execution of a search warrant did not bar a subsequent civil rights lawsuit against the federal agents involved in the search. Hallock v. Bonner, No. 03-6221, 387 F.3d 147 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Jan]
     Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on claims that they unlawfully seized residents of apartment downstairs from residence of suspect when they surrounded and entered the common areas of a duplex building looking for the suspect. Defendants allegedly pointed their weapons at downstairs residents when they did not obey commands to go back inside or stay in their apartment. It is well established, federal trial court notes, that it is reasonable for an officer to temporarily display force or restrain a person "until that person's relationship to the suspect and possible reaction to the situation can be ascertained." In this case, the officers were attempting to locate and arrest a potentially armed suspect believed to be in the same building as the plaintiffs, so that their conduct did not rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation. Reeves v. Churchich, No. 2:02 CV 0551 DAK, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (D. Utah 2004). [N/R]
     Homeowner could pursue her federal civil rights claim that officers unlawfully entered her home to attempt to execute an arrest warrant for a non-resident suspected of being present there. Federal appeals court finds that there were genuine issues of fact as to whether the officers deliberately entered the home without consent, a search warrant, or exigent circumstances, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Genuine issues also found concerning whether officers were or were not trained to attempt to get consent before entering into third-party residences to carry out arrests pursuant to arrest warrants. Maddux v. Officer One, No. 01-20881, 90 Fed. Appx. 754 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Business owner failed to show that officers alleged violation of his reasonable expectation of privacy in making a warrantless entry into garage on the premises in search of an allegedly stolen vehicle was based on the police department's policy or custom, so that the municipality could not be held liable. Binder v. Redforce Township Police Department, No. 02-2184, 93 Fed. Appx. 701 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for his search of a mobile home he was sent to secure when he had been told that minor found dead there may have been a victim of sexual abuse and also that a search warrant for the premises had been signed. Myers v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc., No. 03-2373, 105 Fed. Appx. 404 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Manager of medical office had a right to deny entry to probation officer and police officer at a time when the office was closed to the public. Arrest warrant they had for probationer who occasionally did odd jobs for office did not authorize entry for a search, in the absence of a search warrant for the office or exigent circumstances. Probation officer was not entitled to qualified immunity for entry. O'Rourke v. Hayes, No. 03-10795, 378 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
     Federal appeals court overturns summary judgment for city and county in lawsuit by homeless persons claiming that they have an unconstitutional policy or custom of seizing and destroying their property without proper notice and hearing. Cash v. Hamilton County Dept. of Adult Prob., No. 03-3916 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 23756 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
     Property owner could not pursue unlawful search and seizure claim against sheriff on the basis of his entry into his pasture, since he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the pasture where he kept his cattle. Schroeder v. Kochanowski, No. 03-4108-JAR, 311 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Kan. 2004). [N/R]
     Jury in federal civil rights lawsuit by Arabic owners of New York delicatessens could properly find, from the evidence presented, that a special task force did not single their business out for enforcement efforts on the basis of their national origin. The enforcement efforts concerned outdated food, trash buildup, loitering, overpricing of goods, and improper sales of drug paraphernalia and single cigarettes. The list of delis to be targeted by the task force was based on those with the greatest number of complaints. On an unlawful search and seizure claim, the jury could find, from the evidence, that the business owners consented to the search of the premises. While the jury verdict came three days after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center attributed to persons of Arabic ethnicity, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a new trial on the basis of possible bias by the jury, when they failed to seek either a delay of the trial or a mistrial after the attacks occurred. Saleh v. City of Buffalo, #01-9298, 80 Fed. Appx. 119 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Officers who allegedly compelled warrantless entry into a woman's home by threatening to arrest her and put her baby in foster care were not entitled to qualified immunity. Warrantless entry was not justified by the fact that a parolee, the subject of the search, had previously lived there, when he was in jail at the time, and the search was based on "stale" information. Additionally, no reasonable officer could have believed that pointing a gun at the five week-old baby during a search of his room was reasonable under the circumstances. Motley v. Parks, No. 02-56648 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 19581 (9th Cir.). [2004 LR Nov]
     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]
     The factual question of whether officers reasonably believed that their warrantless entry into a home was necessary for the safety of the residents in light of the behavior of a man with "mental problems" inside was for the jury to decide, so that a trial court properly denied the plaintiffs summary judgment on their federal civil rights lawsuit against the officers. The officers contended that their warrantless entry was justified by the man's extreme agitation at the door to the residence, his statement that he would "like to kill" the police, and the presence of his elderly parents inside, as well as their apparent inability to calm their son down. Deloreto v. Karengekis, No. 03-7709, 104 Fed. Appx. 765 (2nd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     In a lawsuit claiming that federal agents had violated the Fourth Amendment in the course of retrieving documents from a medical office responsive to a subpoena in a regulatory enforcement action, the agents' supervisors could not be held liable for damages when they had no personal involvement in the incidents in question. Van Eck v. Cimahosky, 329 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Conn. 2004). [N/R]
     Officers who had reason to believe that juveniles were drinking alcohol at a party inside a home could have believed that they had exigent circumstances sufficient to justify a warrantless entry into the residence, based on the threat to public safety if the juveniles subsequently left the home in cars under the influence of alcohol. They were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. Radloff v. Oelwein, No. 03-3493, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 17016 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
     Parole officers had no right to make a warrantless search of a woman's house to look for a parole violator who did not actually live there. Because they reasonably believed, however, on the basis of mistaken information furnished to them, that the house was the parolee's residence, they were entitled to qualified immunity from liability, since they had the right to search a parolee's home without probable cause or a warrant, and they left as soon as they determined that this was not the parolee's home. Moore v. Vega, #02-9209, 371 F.3d 110 (2nd Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
     Dancers at sexually-oriented dance club had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their dressing room, so that officers who came to the club to see if it was complying with a city ordinance regulating such businesses violated the Fourth Amendment by making a warrantless search of the dressing room. Federal court also rejects argument that the warrantless search of the dressing room was a valid warrantless "administrative search." The police officers who conducted the search were also not entitled to qualified immunity because there was clearly established law that officers may not, without a warrant, enter any area in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, in the absence of a specific exception to that principle. Bevan v. Smartt, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1153 (D. Utah. 2004). [N/R]
     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]
     Officers who allegedly failed to immediately terminate their search of a residence when they learned that they were in the wrong house were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Simmons v. City of Paris, Texas, No. 03-41291, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 14946 (5th Cir.). [2004 LR Sep]
     County was entitled to summary judgment in lawsuit by elderly woman claiming that members of multi-agency task force improperly entered and searched her home looking for suspect who no longer lived there, when no county policy or custom caused the actions. Individual deputies involved in obtaining the address to go to or who accompanied team members on the search, were entitled to qualified immunity, as their actions did not violate plaintiff's rights. Johnson v. Deep East Texas Regional Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, No. 03-40394, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 15493 (5th Cir.). [2004 LR Sep]
     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]
     Arab-American man who became involved in domestic dispute with his ex-wife did not show that officers violated his rights by accompanying her into the home to retrieve her belongings or that they engaged in gender or national origin discrimination in failing to pursue an investigation into her conduct when he claimed that she had "broken in" and stolen his property. Officers reasonably believed that ex-wife had the right to consent to their entry into the home and there was no showing that the man was treated any differently than similarly situated women or non-Arab-Americans. Harajli v. Huron Tp., 02-2169, 365 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
     Former special agent in charge of DEA office who made an allegedly false statement to a federal investigator which was incorporated into an affidavit for a search warrant for the home and office of one of his former subordinate agents could not be held liable for a Fourth Amendment violation on that basis. There is no protection under the Fourth Amendment, the court rules, against a person lying about his personal memories of the past to investigators who subsequently use it as the basis of a search and seizure. The defendant lacked personal involvement in the investigation and search. Mueller v. Gallina, 311 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Mich. 2004). [N/R]
     Business owner who obtained suppression of evidence in federal criminal proceeding on the basis of alleged omissions of material facts from affidavit for search warrant was not entitled, in subsequent civil rights lawsuit in state court, to judicial notice of factual findings made in federal judge's order, or to collateral estoppel as to their truth, since the defendants in the subsequent lawsuit were not parties to the federal proceeding, and therefore had no opportunity to dispute those facts. Kilroy v. State of California, No. C044877, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 839 (Cal. 3d App. Dist 2004). [2004 LR Jul]
      Police officers who allegedly continued to search apartment even after they had verified that the parties sought were not there were not entitled to qualified immunity, as their claimed actions, if true, would violate the Fourth Amendment. Peterson v. Jensen, No. 02-4243, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11242 (10th Cir.). [2004 LR Jul]
     U.S. Supreme Court grants review on case involving the scope of permissible detention and questioning of persons, not suspected of crime, found inside a residence during the execution of a search warrant. Mena v. Simi Valley, Calif., 332 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. granted, Muehler v. Mena, No. 03-1423, 2004 U.S. Lexis 4190 (June 14, 2004). [2004 LR Jul]
     Fourth Amendment does not required that police officers have any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before knocking on a residence door to conduct an inquiry, so that use of "knock and talk" procedure, which resulted in the obtaining of incriminating evidence, did not violate arrestee's rights. People v. Jenkins, #G032626, 2004 Cal. App. Lexis 887 (Cal. 4th App. Dist.. 2004). [N/R]
     Officers' warrantless search of home was legitimate on the basis of permission to enter given to them by persons in the home. It was also justified by exigent circumstances because they observed a potentially dangerous fugitive approach the residence in a "furtive manner," and then enter. Couden v. Duffey, 305 F. Supp. 2d 379 (D. Del. 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]
     "Consent" to enter a home, procured by an officer's false statement that police had a warrant, did not constitute "consent" at all. Arrest of suspect inside home without consent or a warrant following such an entry would be improper. Hadley v. Williams, #03-1530, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 9446 (7th Cir.). [2004 LR Jun]
Search and Seizure: Person
     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]
     Police officers were justified in making a warrantless entry into a home when they believed that there could be a woman inside who was "in trouble," and when two occupants of home, although they knew that a uniformed officer outside was seeking to speak with them, decided not to answer the door. Officers acted for the purpose of protecting the woman they believed was inside. Martin v. City of Oceanside, No. 02-56177, 360 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR May]
     No exigent circumstances existed sufficient to justify no-knock "dynamic entry" into home. Federal appeals court upholds $2 million jury verdict against officer on unlawful entry claim, as well as against sergeant and Board of Police Commissions on inadequate training claims. Doran v. Eckold, No. 03-1810, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 6479 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR May]
     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]
     Factual issues concerning whether officer's search of man's residence, yard, and barn in an effort to locate a woman purportedly involved in a domestic dispute with him was justified by exigent circumstances or the plaintiff's consent barred summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in the man's civil rights lawsuit. Colao v. Mills, 770 N.Y.S.2d 474 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
     Motorcycle club whose documents and records were lawfully seized by state law enforcement from their clubhouse had no reasonable expectation of privacy in those materials following the seizure, federal appeals court rules, upholding dismissal of civil rights claim against federal agent to whom those materials were subsequently turned over pursuant to an administrative subpoena. Motorcycle club, therefore, had no constitutional right to notice and an opportunity to contest the subpoena. Hell's Angels Motorcycle Corporation, No. 02-15215, 354 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Strip searches of patrons during execution of search warrant for drug transactions at nightclub were unlawful when carried out without individualized reasonable suspicion of possession of drugs or probable cause, and sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting the searches. Federal appeals court upholds award of $100 in nominal damages and $15,000 in punitive damages for each plaintiff. Williams v. Kaufman County, No. 02-10500, 352 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
     Homeowner failed to prove her claims that officers executing a search warrant at her residence caused unreasonable property damage or planted evidence of drugs there. Heft v. Moore, No. 02-4110, 351 F. 3d 278 (7th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
     FBI agent was not required to obtain a search warrant for a residence in addition to an arrest warrant for a suspect reasonably believed to be an occupant in order to enter a dwelling. Tyson v. Willauer, 289 F. Supp. 2d 190 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     Even if officers did forcibly enter a home without a warrant, this was not a Fourth Amendment violation when the entry was explicitly authorized by the conservator of the homeowner's estate after the homeowner was found incompetent and removed by a state agency. Officers, in entering and responding to resident daughter's objection to the removal of her father's property and documents, also did not act in a manner justifying an award of damages for emotional distress under Connecticut state law. Ehrlich v. Town of Glastonbury, No. 02-7839, 348 F.3d 48 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
     Officers acted unlawfully in seizing a man at a gas station when they were on the way to executing a search warrant at his residence and transporting him to the site of the search, without probable cause to arrest him. Arrestee awarded $4,000 in actual damages and punitive damages of $20,000 by jury. Pappas v. New Haven Police Department, 278 F. Supp. 2d 296 (D. Conn. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
     Municipal building inspector was not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit objecting to his numerous warrantless entries in lessees' offices when there was evidence that his actions were motivated by an intent to harass or unfairly target them because of their political association with the mayor. Mimics, Inc. v. The Village of Angel Fire, 277 F. Supp. 2d 1131 (D.N.M. 2003). [N/R]
     Police officers were entitled to summary judgment on unlawful search claims when they entered an apartment while executing a valid search warrant. Confidential informant's error in mistakenly identifying plaintiff's apartment number rather than the correct apartment number next door did not alter the result. Hellmann v. Gugliotti, 279 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
     Nightclub patrons strip-searched and detained for three hours because they were present during execution of search warrant on premises for evidence of crack cocaine transactions were properly awarded $100 in actual damages and $15,000 in punitive damages each. Sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity for conducting searches without particularized reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Williams v. Kaufman County, No. 02-10500, 343 F.3d 689 (5th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Jan]
     Homeowner did not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in a basement apartment he rented out to tenants, who allegedly grew marijuana there. Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan, No. 01-6326, 338 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Jan]
     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]
     Seizure of old truck from residential property without a warrant or any exigent circumstances under the authority of an abandoned property ordinance, if true, would violate landowner's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, so defendant city officials were not entitled to qualified immunity. Gould v. Symons, 275 F. Supp. 2d 843 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [N/R]
     Officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a woman with Down Syndrome or subject her to disability discrimination by making a warrantless entry into her apartment in response to her 911 call, seizing her, and involuntarily taking her to be hospitalized in a psychiatric unit. Anthony v. City of New York, #01-7987(L), 339 F.3d 129 (2nd Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
     Warrantless arrest of resident during execution of valid search warrant for her home did not violate her rights, based on evidence found, which officers believed, at the time, was crack cocaine. Officers earlier violated federal criminal statute by pretending to be census workers, but such conduct cannot be the basis for a federal civil rights claim. Frison v. Zebro, No. 02-2226, 339 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Nov]
     Police officers had exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry into the home of a 911 caller and her fiance when the dispatcher labeled the call as involving a "cutting or stabbing," and the fiance answered the door with blood on his legs and boxer shorts, and the caller was not then visible. Alleged handcuffing of caller for one minute while officers inspected her bruises was not proven, and plaintiff could not identify which officer purportedly did so. Probable cause existed for arrest of fiance for domestic violence based on bruises on woman caller. Thacker v. City of Columbus, No. 01-4097, 328 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Oct]
     Police officers could reasonably have believed that their search of a residence was proper based on a co-tenant supplying them with a key to the premises as well as signing a consent form, even if she did not accompany them to the home. The officers were therefore entitled to qualified immunity from claims for unreasonable search and seizure asserted by the other tenant, who they subsequently arrested. Crim v. King, No. 01-57106, 65 Fed. Appx. 591 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Owner of food distribution business failed to present allegations sufficient to establish a claim that an allegedly unlawful warrantless search of the business was caused by a police department policy or custom, as required for municipal liability, when the complaint failed to point to anything other than the search at issue. Chin v. City of Baltimore, 241 F. Supp. 2d 546 (D. Md. 2003). [N/R]
     Washington state homeowner was not entitled, under state constitutional provisions concerning the taking of property and eminent domain, to compensation for alleged damage to her residence as a result of the execution of a search warrant there by police. Eggleston v. Pierce County, No. 71296-4, 64 P.3d 618 (Wash. 2003). [N/R]
     Two police officers were each properly assessed $10,000 in compensatory and $20,000 in punitive damages, appeals court rules, for unreasonable and "unnecessarily degrading" and prolonged detention of female resident of home who was not a subject of their investigation during the execution of a search warrant. Plaintiff was allegedly kept in handcuffs for several hours, marched barefoot through the rain, and unnecessarily questioned about her citizenship status. Mena v. City of Simi Valley, #01-56673, 332 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Sep]
     While the "knock and announce" rule is clearly established law, a violation of which, without cause, could support a federal civil rights claim, in this instance the officers had exigent circumstances justifying their unannounced entry into the home to serve the search warrant. At the time of the search, there were three armed suspects "on the loose," with a "good chance" that they were hiding in the house being entered. Battiste v. Rojeski, 257 F. Supp. 2d 957 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [N/R]
     In case where elderly couple challenged the validity of search warrant for their home, defendants could be required to either produce a confidential informant for an "in chambers" deposition, to reveal his identity, or to convince the court that, for reasons of safety, his identity need not be revealed. In the alternative, the defendants could be barred from presenting any evidence at trial based on the alleged existence of the informant. Smith v. City of Detroit, No. 01-70740, 212 F.R.D. 507 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [2003 LR Aug]
     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]
     Fire chief was entitled to qualified immunity that he issued a citation against the owner of rental properties for refusal to consent to a warrantless inspection of tenants' apartments. The alleged right of the owner, under the Fourth Amendment, to refuse to consent to the warrantless inspection intended to protect the tenants' safety, was not clearly established, so that a reasonable building or fire code enforcement official could have believed that the landlord had no right to refuse entry, so that he could be cited for obstructing access. Grimm v. Sweeney, #01-431, 249 F. Supp. 2d 571 (E.D. Pa. 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]
     Federal appeals court overturns jury award of damages to three bystanders detained by police during search of commercial building by police under search warrant and of damages to building owner for property damage during search. City could not be liable to bystanders, as there was no showing that there was a municipal policy or custom of detaining innocent bystanders to searches for an unreasonably long period of time. Damage done to building during search, which amounted to less than $500, did not amount to a "taking" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, and building owner had no reasonable expectation that the building would remain free of legal searches. Two-hour deprivation of access to the building could not be the basis for a claim for damages either. Jones v. Philadelphia Police Department, No. 01-4202, 57 Fed. Appx. 939 (3rd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Sheriff and SWAT team members were not entitled to qualified immunity for death of man shot and killed in his home after he resisted being taken into custody for a psychiatric evaluation. If plaintiff's factual allegations were true, and decedent was in the process of surrendering when he was shot and killed, use of deadly force against him was clearly excessive. Warrantless entry into the home when the man had "not committed" any crimes and there was no immediate need to subdue him was "reckless" and an excessive use of force. Federman v. County of Kern, No. 01-16691, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 7180 (9th Cir.). [2003 LR Jun]
     Officers could detain employees of business while executing a search warrant on the premises to find evidence of alleged fraudulent practices, but they could not require them to submit to custodial interrogation as a condition of release. Ganwich v. Knapp, No. 01-35677, 319 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     Officers could properly enter an apartment in order to complete an investigatory stop of an individual who fled inside, and did not use excessive force in stopping his relatives from preventing them from removing him from the apartment to complete his questioning. Rivera v. Washington, No. 01-1595, 57 Fed. Appx. 558 (4th Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Jun]
     There were genuine issues of fact as to whether a parent's alleged consent to a police officer and social workers to enter their home to investigate suspicion of child neglect without a warrant was coerced, so that officers and social workers were not entitled to summary judgment on parent's claim that they violated the Fourth Amendment and Ohio state constitution in entering the premises. Walsh v. Erie County Dept. of Job and Family Services, 240 F. Supp. 2d 731 (N.D. Ohio 2003). [N/R]
     State and federal agents who detained and handcuffed employees for three and a half hours in 1996 while executing a search warrant for unlawful drugs on a workplace were entitled to qualified immunity. Such a search warrant carries with it limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted, and it was not shown either that the length of the detention was unreasonable under the circumstances or that the agents were unreasonable in their belief that they were not violating clearly established law when they displayed drawn guns, and pushed one of the employees to the ground when he failed to obey an order to "get down." Pikel v. Garrett, #01-3850, 55 Fed. Appx. 29 (3rd Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Homeowners who contend that the search warrant used to enter their home described a distinctly different residence could pursue their claim for municipal liability. Their allegations that three of the officers involved in the search had previously been named as defendants in other civil suits as a result of raiding the wrong house and that they were then given no additional training, if true, was sufficient to allow an inference that the city was deliberately indifferent to such incidents. Smith v. City of Detroit, 238 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Mich. 2003). [N/R]
     Presence of officers during a court-sanctioned entry into a man's residence by his wife in connection with divorce proceedings to retrieve some of her possessions did not constitute an illegal search and seizure in violation of federal and state constitutional provisions. The plaintiff's federal civil rights claims against the city and officers were frivolous and the defendants were therefore entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. Todd v. City of Natchitoches, 238 F. Supp. 2d 793 (W.D. La. 2002). [N/R]
     Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that they kept two apartment occupants handcuffed for two hours while their apartment was being searched under a warrant. The complaint alleged that they were kept handcuffed long after the officers had reason to believe that they were not connected with persons sought in connection with a shooting. Seaman v. Karr, #27935-5-II, 59 P.3d 701 (Wash. App. 2002). [N/R]
     Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim concerning the arrest of a social visitor to an apartment after a search warrant had been executed there. The need for probable cause to seize the visitor was "clearly established." Gregory v. Oliver, 226 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Ill. 2002). [N/R]
     Trial court properly dismissed arrestee's claims concerning supposedly false statements in search warrants for her home and business when the officer preparing the affidavit for the warrants clearly indicated that the statements in question came from a confidential informant previously shown to be reliable, and the officer had no reason to believe that these statements were false. Dahl v. Holley, #01-15089, 312 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR May]
     Following execution of search warrant on home, officers acted properly in obtaining a second search warrant to seize video camera and answering machine in residence which may have contained evidence of the evening's events, which subsequently gave rise to a federal civil rights lawsuit over the execution of the first search warrant. Estate of Smith v. Marosco, 227 F. Supp. 2d 322 (E.D. Pa. 2002). [N/R]
     California officers' initial stop and investigation of vehicle without license plates was reasonable, but there was a jury question as to whether they acted improperly in engaging in a prolonged two hour detention of the driver and her passenger, and whether they improperly engaged in a warrantless search of the two occupants' home during that time when all that was consented to may have been an officer accompanying the driver into the home to retrieve the passenger's California identification card. Intermediate appeals court reinstates lawsuit by vehicle occupants.. Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, #B148398, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 627 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 2002). [2003 LR Apr]
     Officers' actions in entering a home without a warrant with their guns drawn was justified by the emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, and the officers were therefore entitled to qualified immunity, when they had been told that a woman might be in danger and they reasonably believed that she was inside the house. Martin v. City of Oceanside, 205 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (S.D. Cal. 2002). [N/R]
     Arrestee's wife was not falsely imprisoned under Kansas state law or for purposes of a federal civil rights claim when officers prevented her, for two hours, from reentering her house without an escort while they waited to obtain a search warrant for the home following a valid arrest of her husband for firing a revolver in an alleged aggravated assault. Price v. Cochran, 205 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Kan. 2002). [N/R]
     State social worker violated Fourth Amendment rights in conducting a visual body cavity search of a female minor based on accusations of sexual abuse without demonstrating probable cause and obtaining a court order, getting parental consent, or showing emergency circumstances, but she was entitled to qualified immunity because the violation was not clearly established in July of 1999. Mother of child did consent to investigative home visit and therefore had no individual claim for Fourth Amendment violations. Roe v. Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, #01-50711, 299 F.3d 395 (5th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     City ordinances regulating pawn shops, under which officers made seizures of jewelry from plaintiff's shop on several different occasions, did not violate his Fourth Amendment or due process rights. The ordinances require either a warrant or consent from the store owner for the seizure of property and provide a mechanism under which a pawn broker may obtain a hearing regarding the seized property. Plaintiff consented to two of the seizures, and a third seizure took place under a valid warrant. Larson v. City of Denver, #01-1301, 41 Fed. Appx. 355 (10th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Exigent circumstances justifying an officer's warrantless entry into a home were present when she was informed by a second officer, who she believed to be truthful and reliable, that an armed suspect had run inside, but appeals court orders further proceedings on whether officer was entitled to qualified immunity on her purported failure to comply with the Fourth Amendment's "knock and announce" requirement before entering. Smith v. Stone, #00-4574, 40 Fed. Appx. 197 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Dec]
     Search warrant for home which did not contain any description of the evidence sought failed to comply with the Fourth Amendment's requirement of particularity. An officer's alleged verbal description to the homeowners of the items to be searched for was not sufficient to overcome this defect, and the warrant did not refer to or incorporate the application or affidavit used to obtain it. Rank and file officers on the search team were entitled to qualified immunity, but the leader of the search team was not. Ramirez v. Butte-Silver Bow County, #99-36138, 00-35955, 298 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Dec]
     Tenant of apartment failed to show that search warrant issued for her apartment to seek a murder weapon suspected to be there was improperly issued. The tenant did not point to any evidence that the information submitted in support of the warrant was unreliable and stale. Hamilton v. City of New Haven, 213 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D. Conn. 2002). [N/R]
     Police officers could reasonably believe that homeowner's nephew, who stated that he was in control of the house for the weekend, had authority to consent to a warrantless search of the premises after he reported to police that minors present in the house were having a drinking party with alcoholic beverages. Carter v. Rosenbeck, 214 F. Supp. 2d 889 (C.D. Ill. 2002). [N/R]
     Police officers' alleged actions of obtaining a search warrant for a residence "attached" to a restaurant, but then also searching the restaurant under the same warrant violated clearly established law so that they were not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Ruby v. Horner, #01-4003, 39 Fed. Appx. 284 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Nov]
     Officer did not act improperly in obtaining a search warrant for a residence, based on informant's identification of a resident as being involved in a counterfeiting operation, despite the fact that the informant's identification subsequently turned out to be mistaken. Other officers participating in the search reasonably relied on the facial validity of the search warrant. Ferguson v. City of Louisville, 199 F. Supp. 2d 625 (W.D.Ky. 2002).[2002 LR Sep]
     City could not be held liable for shooting and killing of apartment occupant following allegedly unconstitutional warrantless entry. Evidence of eleven prior incidents of warrantless searches of residences by a gang task force was insufficient to establish the existence of a municipal custom of warrantless searches of residences in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Appeals court also rejects claim for liability based on inadequate training theory. Pineda v. City of Houston, #01-20189, 291 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Sep]
     Police officers acted in a reasonable manner for purposes of qualified immunity in reading warrants of attachment for contempt as allowing them to enter his motel room when they stated that they could be served in the daytime in a public place when it was not clear under prior Idaho law whether the restrictions were to be read "conjunctively or disjunctively." Plaintiff was also barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel from relitigating the issue of whether the officers complied with the "knock and announce" rule when it was determined at criminal trial suppression hearing that they had. Hall v. Tudbury, #00-35831, 35 Fed. Appx. 428 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Disputed issues of material fact existed as to whether the mother of a resident's child consented to police detectives opening and damaging a locked safe in his home and whether a reasonable officer would have considered her authorized to do so, precluding qualified immunity for the detectives in the resident's federal civil rights lawsuit for the alleged unlawful search of his house and locked safe. Smith v. Heimer, #02-1042, 35 Fed. Appx. 293 (8th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Resident of a home who was not its owner had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but his privacy was not violated by noncompliance with the "knock-and-announce rule" when he was not present during the execution of a search warrant. Further, as a non-owner, he lacked standing to assert a claim for damage to the property, such as the breaking of doors. Eiland v. Jackson, #01-3139, 34 Fed. Appx. 40 (3rd Cir. 2002).   [2002 LR Aug]
     Colorado Supreme Court holds that U.S. and Colorado constitutions protect an individual's "fundamental right to purchase books anonymously," and imposes a requirement under state law that bookstores be given an opportunity for an adversarial hearing prior to the execution of a search warrant seeking customer purchase records, to balance the need for the search against the privacy interests of the customers. Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, #01SA205, 44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. 2002).   [2002 LR Aug]
     Police officers were not subject to liability for the alleged improper destruction of property in a home during the execution of a residential search warrant on a "group liability" theory. Officers who remained outside of the home during the search could not be held liable for officers' alleged actions inside on the basis that they were "integral participants" in the allegedly unlawful conduct. Jones v. Williams, #00-56929, 286 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
     County sheriff did not violate the rights of pawnbrokers by conducting administrative searches of their businesses to ensure compliance with a Florida state record keeping statute, but statute did not empower him to immediately seize property for which records could not be produced. Quik Cash Pawn & Jewelry Inc. v. Sheriff of Broward County, 279 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Jul]
     Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for alleged improper search within hunter's deer hangpole located 25 yards from a wooden structure on a 50 acre tract of recreational land. There were genuine issues of material fact as to whether structure qualified as a "home" and whether the deer hangpole was within the curtilage of the "home" or in an open field. While it was clearly established that the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies to the curtilage of a home, the officers could reasonably have believed that the deer hangpole stood in open fields. Hart v. Myers, 183 F. Supp. 2d 512 (D. Conn. 2002). [N/R]
     Officers were entitled to absolute immunity for entering a building owned by the plaintiff for the purpose of enforcing a court-ordered home visit by social service workers conducting a home study of the care of children who resided there. Entry did not constitute a "search" and officers did not see or touch business or confidential records or even open the closet where the records were stored. Monroe v. Pueblo Police Department, No. 01-1112 30 Federal Appendix 778 (10th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Jun]
      Jury properly awarded woman $7,500 in damages for forced warrantless entry into her home by two deputies who were accompanying social workers on a "child welfare check" concerning why the woman's son had not been in school. Homeowner informed officers that the child was not present and there was nothing they observed which would justify an "emergency" exception to the warrant requirement for entry. Chavez v. Board of County Commissioners of Curry County, No. 21,066, 31 P.3d 1027 (N.M. App. 2001). [2002 LR Apr]
     A genuine issue of material fact as to whether police officers had knowledge concerning the actual location of a telephone caller who reported that an intoxicated man was attempting to get into her house precluded summary judgment for the officers in a lawsuit filed by a homeowner after the officers mistakenly went to and entered his home, rather than the home of the caller. Davenport v. Simmons, 192 F. Supp. 2d 812 (W.D. Tenn. 2001). [N/R]
     Police officer was in hot pursuit of suspect when he entered a home without a warrant and his entry therefore did not violate the occupants' Fourth Amendment rights. Officer had probable cause to believe that the visitor to the home was an immediate threat to either the officer or the public, when he had previously injured his sister and slashed his parent's tires. Hickey v. Hayse, 188 F. Supp. 2d 722 (W.D. Ken. 2001). [N/R]
     Search of man's residence under warrant was not rendered unreasonable because it was conducted while his children waited for the school bus outside the home, in the absence of any claim that the officers harmed or threatened the children in any way. Handcuffing of man for two hours while they searched his home under the warrant did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, particularly when they also arrived armed with an arrest warrant. Martin v. Rodriguez, 154 F. Supp. 2d 306 (D. Conn. 2001). [N/R]
    City could not be held liable for damages allegedly caused by officers' warrantless search of apartment when there was no evidence that the city's official policies or practices contributed to or caused the alleged unconstitutional search. New trial required, however, on jury verdict for officers, when jury instructions were confusing and might have led the jury to believe that the officer's subjective intent to violate the plaintiff's rights was required for liability, rather than a finding of objective unreasonableness. Hudson v. New York City, #99-7256, 271 F.3d 62 (2nd Cir. 2001). [N/R]
     Arrestee could pursue a claim for unreasonable search of his property even if the evidence seized was introduced in the criminal trial which resulted in his still-outstanding conviction. James v. York County Police Dept., Civ. A. No. 1:CV-01-1015, 167 F. Supp. 2d 719 (M.D. Pa. 2001). [N/R]
     347:166 Officers' entry into home with arrest warrant for man believed to be staying there, based on unverified anonymous tip would be unlawful if they did not have a reasonable belief that he lived there, as opposed to being a guest in the home; disputed facts required further proceedings. Watts v. County of Sacramento, #00-15099, 256 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2001).
     346:157 Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for arresting homeowner for obstructing justice for objecting verbally to their proposed search of the curtilage of his home, where they did not have probable cause or a warrant to do so; his holding of a beer bottle on his own property also did not support an arrest for "public" intoxication. Rogers v. Pendleton, No. 00-2130, 249 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 2001).
     344:126 City officials were not required to first attempt to obtain building owner's consent to inspection of his building before attempting to obtain an administrative search warrant based on officer's affidavit that the building appeared to be "unsafe and dangerous." Meloche v. City of West Branch, 134 F. Supp. 2d 859 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
     343:108 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on claim that their search warrant for a residence was overbroad, when they could reasonably have believed that the residence was a single family home with multiple unrelated occupants; once they realized, however, that some rooms were separate living units, the scope of the permissible search would narrow, and further detention, at that point, of residents of other rooms might also become unreasonable. Mena v. City of Simi Valley, No. 99-56720, 226 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2000).
     343:109 Entry into home was valid, based on consent of 13-year-old daughter of couple, left to care for four minor children; probable cause existed to make arrest for neglect. Gonzalez v. City of Tampa, No. 99-1919, 776 So. 2d 290 (Fla. App. 2000).
     341:77 Sheriff's department was not liable for execution of "no knock" search warrant on the wrong residence when city police officer who obtained the warrant stated the wrong address in the application; city officer, however, was not entitled to immunity and will face trial on whether his error rose to the level of incompetence; court finds that no municipal policy or custom was shown, hence no municipal liability. Rossi v. City of Amsterdam, 712 N.Y.S.2d 79 (A.D. 2000).
     339:46 Elderly father arrested for resisting unexplained warrantless entry into his home by police officers was entitled to $12,500 award for false arrest; no exigent circumstances supported the warrantless entry into the residence to arrest his intoxicated son. Carter v. City of Natchitoches, No. 00-349, 772 So. 2d 186 (La. App. 2000).
     338:30 New York court rules that arrestee whose conviction was overturned on the basis of a defective affidavit for search warrant was not entitled to pursue a state constitutional claim for unreasonable search and seizure; exclusion of the evidence was an adequate remedy when the arrestee was prosecuted, so no damage remedy was required. Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 714 N.Y.S.2d 572 (A.D. 2000).
     338:28 Broad generalizations that drug addicts are "prone to steal," contained in affidavit for a search warrant, were insufficient to provide probable cause for the search and seizure of methadone clinic patient records during investigation of theft from nearby jewelry store; no showing, however, that county policy or custom caused search. Doe v. Broderick, Nos. 99-1893, 99-1894, 225 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2000).
     337:12 Brief detention of residence occupants during execution of proper search warrant was not unlawful; supervising officer was entitled to official immunity under Georgia state law for discretionary action in detaining occupants. White v. Traino, No. A00A0129, 535 S.E.2d 275 (Ga. App. 2000).
     337:14 Strip search of minor female, not named in search warrant, during search of trailer for marijuana, would not be reasonable absence particularized suspicion that she was concealing drugs on her person; deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity from liability. Sims v. Forehand, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M.D. Ala. 2000).
     329:70 Miami reaches $2.5 million settlement in death of 72-year-old man in his bedroom during SWAT team raid on his apartment in which 122 shots were fired; officers asserted that decedent fired two shots at them after they properly knocked and announced they were executing search warrant; plaintiffs asserted that gun and drugs were "planted" by officers to "coverup" misconduct, and that officers did not properly announce their identity as police. Brown v. City of Miami, U.S. Dist. Ct. Miami, Fla., reported in The National Law Journal, p. A10 (March 27, 2000).
     331:109 Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity when they obtained search warrant for couples' residence based on an affidavit that merely stated that they were conducting a "death investigation" of a five-year-old girl's death, without any facts indicating that there was a suspicion of sexual abuse or any other crime. Myers v. Medical Center of Delaware, Inc., 86 F.Supp. 2d 389 (D. Del. 2000).
     332:125 Businessperson was not barred from pursuing federal civil rights lawsuit over allegedly illegal seizure of items from his business and storage locker because of his criminal conviction for certain charges arising out of the operation of his business; a finding of illegality of the seizure of certain items would not necessarily imply the illegality of the conviction. Schwartz v. City of Phoenix, 83 F.Supp. 2d 1102 (D. Ariz. 2000).
     333:140 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for making a warrantless search of a woman's residence based on consent given by a non-resident part-time caretaker for the resident, but not for entering and searching her bedroom. Kaspar v. City of Hobbs, 90 F.Supp. 2d 1313 (D.N.M. 2000).
     333:139 Officers' warrantless entry into a home where unsupervised underage drinking was going on was justified by exigent circumstances of possible escape of intoxicated teenagers and destruction of evidence while a search warrant was being obtained, along with the danger to the public of intoxicated driving; officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Howes v. Hitchcock, 66 F.Supp. 2d 203 (D. Mass 1999).
     [N/R] Apartment tenants had standing to challenge allegedly unconstitutional search of rented premises when landlord, who wanted to evict tenants, did not have a valid order granting him exclusive possession at the time deputy sheriffs allegedly engaged in search. Ryan v. Mary Immaculate Queen Center, No. 98-3849, 188 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1999).
     [N/R] Exigent circumstances justified officers' warrantless entry into plaintiffs' home to pursue fleeing felony suspect, but this did not provide officers with a general right to handcuff and detain at gunpoint the occupants of the home. Ingram v. City of Columbus, No. 97-4303, 185 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 1999).
     330:94 Officers who entered an apartment with an arrest warrant but no search warrant were entitled to qualified immunity from apartment resident's lawsuit claiming illegal search when it turned out that subject of arrest warrant did not reside there, since officers had an objectively reasonable belief that he did. Clayton v. City of Kingston, 44 F.Supp. 2d 177 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
     327:45 Anonymous phone call saying that woman heard a child within a house shout "No Daddy, no" and "no, no, no" did not provide "exigent circumstances" justifying warrantless entry into home by police officer and social worker fourteen days later or requiring mother to pull down three-year-old's pants to inspect for bruises. Calabretta v. Floyd, #97-15385, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999).
     327:45 Two-hour administrative search of nightclubs by forty officers and revenue agents, during which the identity of 400 patrons was checked to detect underage drinking was not unreasonable; rather, it was a valid administrative search under state liquor laws. Crosby v. Paulk, #97-8585, 187 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 1999).
     328:60 Lawsuit claiming that sheriff directed deputies to conduct warrantless entry into apartment to serve eviction notice on tenant stated claim for violation of Fourth Amendment rights; appeals court rejects argument that both a search and a seizure are required for a Fourth Amendment violation; sheriff's personal direction was a sufficient basis for supervisory liability. Ryan v. Mary Immaculate Queen Center, No. 98-3849, 188 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1999).
     323:174 Deputy liable for $8,500 to homeowner for allowing private security officer to accompany him while he executed a search warrant for unregistered guns, and allowing security officer to conduct his own independent search for stolen property not mentioned in the warrant. Buonocore v. Harris, #96-1847, 96-1984, 96-1986, 134 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} There was a genuine issue of fact as to whether or not officer's warrantless entry to into a house to arrest a resident's son was justified by exigent circumstances. Guite v. Wright, No. 97-3864, 147 F.3d 747 (8th Cir. 1998).
     {N/R} Arrest within apartment would be unlawful even with probable cause if made without either arrest warrant or exigent circumstances. Rogers v. Carter, #96- 1916, 133 F.3d 1114 (8th Cir. 1998).
     322:158 Officers properly made warrantless entry into residence after they were told that "bad" domestic dispute had just occurred inside and that screaming had been heard coming from the building; search of residence was proper, since female resident's statement that her boyfriend had left, to safeguard her and her children against the possibility that he was actually still present and had intimidated her into making that statement. Tierney v. Davidson, #97-7172, 133 F.3d 189 (2nd Cir. 1998).
     322:157 Statement of alleged kidnap victim that she had been held captive in a residence and raped there, and that she observed guns and stolen videos in the home, was sufficient, with other information to support the issuance of two search warrants for residence, as well as the arrest of a resident based on her positive identification. Carson v. Lewis, 35 F.Supp. 2d 250 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).
     321:142 Entry into woman's home without search warrant was proper when officers possessed an arrest warrant for her son and had a reasonable basis to believe that son both resided there and was likely to be inside. Valdez v. McPheters, #97-4057, 172 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 1999).
     319:99 U.S. Supreme Court unanimously holds that allowing members of the news media to enter private residences along with law enforcement officers during the execution of arrest or search warrants violates the Fourth Amendment rights of the residents; individual defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity in two cases before the Court. Wilson v. Layne, #98-83, 119 S.Ct. (1999); Hanlon v. Berger, No. 97-1927, 119 S.Ct. 1706 (1999).
     318:94 New York City reaches $500,000 settlement with Hells Angels members and their girlfriends for search of apartments over motorcycle club headquarters that allegedly exceeded scope of search warrant for ground level. Dowling v. City of New York, U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D.N.Y., reported in The New York Times, National Edition, p. A12 (April 3, 1999).
     318:84 Determination, in state criminal appeal, that affidavit for search warrant was inadequate did not bar officer who signed affidavit from asserting, in subsequent federal civil rights lawsuit, that she was entitled to qualified immunity for reasonably believing that affidavit was adequate. Gentile v. Bauder, 718 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1998).
     316:54 Man convicted of two counts of criminal sexual conduct with minors was not entitled to damages from police officers who immediately removed his infant daughter from his home without a warrant when his niece had stated that she and another minor had been sexually abused there. Falkiewicz v. City of Westland, 25 F.Supp. 2d 783 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
     315:40 Officers not entitled to qualified immunity for placing man in handcuffs for four hours during search of his residence for evidence of crimes allegedly committed by co-resident; man detained was not suspected of any criminal activity and indeed initially exited home to assist officers when asked to do so. Heitschmidt v. City of Houston, #97- 20316, 161 F.3d 834 (5th Cir. 1998).
     315:35 U.S. Supreme Court reverses appeals court decision requiring officers seizing property pursuant to search warrant to give property owners detailed notices explaining state law procedures for asking court to return seized property. City of West Covina v. Perkins, #97-1230, 119 S.Ct. 678 (1999).
     313:14 Police officers did not act unreasonably in entering backyard of home in response to phone call complaining of alleged underage drinking party; sign in front of home indicated party was "in back" and they could reasonably expect party host or homeowner to be there. Alvarez v. Montgomery County, #97-1648, 147 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 1998).
     313:13 Backyard and unattached garage behind home were places where homeowner had a reasonable expectation of privacy; officers violated his constitutional rights by conducting warrantless search of garage for stolen goods; officers were entitled, however, to qualified immunity, since law on this issue was not previously clearly established. Daughenbaugh v. City of Tiffin, #97-3200, 150 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 1998).
     301:13 Police officers entitled to qualified immunity for seizing, pursuant to valid warrant, computer used to transmit obscene materials, even if it also contained non-obscene electronic mail belonging to users of on-line computer bulletin board; good faith reliance on search warrant gave officers complete statutory defense to claim under federal statute barring unauthorized interception of electronic communications. Davis v. Gracey, 111 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir. 1997).
     301:14 Officers entitled to qualified immunity for entering couple's home without a search warrant to arrest non- resident son pursuant to an arrest warrant after son answered door; no clearly established law prohibited entry under such circumstances and municipality could not be held liable for failure to teach officers that such conduct was unconstitutional when it was not clear that it was. Joyce v. Town of Tewksbury, Mass., 112 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 1997).
     302:30 Plaintiffs entitled to in-chambers examination of information regarding confidential informant relied on in affidavit for search warrant when description of residence in affidavit was incorrect and no drugs were found in residence search. Holland v. O'Bryant, 958 F.Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1997).
     303:43 Sergeant directing entry, with warrant, into home of narcotics suspect with violent record, could reasonably conclude that forced entry immediately after announcement of police presence was needed to avoid armed response; federal appeals court overturns $92,500 jury award to home occupants, one of whom was shot, against sergeant, who was entitled to qualified immunity. Thompson v. Mahre, 110 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1997).
     303:44 Overturning of apartment resident's drug conviction by New York high court on state constitutional grounds, together with allegations that officers withheld some facts from judge issuing search warrant for apartment, did not support federal civil rights liability when "totality of circumstances" showed that they had objective reason to believe that facts provided probable cause for search warrant; officers entitled to qualified immunity. Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 115 F.3d 111 (2nd Cir. 1997).
     309:141 Protective sweep inside home following arrest of suspects immediately outside of home was not properly supported by articulable belief that others who could endanger those on the arrest scene were inside; officers who conducted search were entitled to qualified immunity, however, in absence of controlling prior case law on the subject. Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810 (3rd Cir. 1997).
     309:142 Detective was entitled to qualified immunity for obtaining search warrant for doctor's office to look for evidence of drug trafficking, unlicensed practice of medicine by doctor's son, and Medicare rules violations; search warrant is based on probable cause that evidence of crime will be found on premises, not that owner of premises is guilty of any offense. Mays v. City of Dayton, 134 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 1998).
     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).
     {N/R} Homeowners whose home was search pursuant to warrant for murder suspect raised genuine issue as to whether officers acted reasonably in dispensing with knock and announce requirement; officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Kornegay v. Cottingham, 120 F.3d 392 (3rd Cir. 1997).
     {N/R} Deputy sheriff's brief, invited entry into tenants' residence to assist landlord's agent in showing premises to potential new tenant, even if it constituted a search, was reasonable, based on deputy's "community caretaking" function; deputy acted with motive to keep the peace in dispute between tenant and landlord. Kalmas v. Wagner, 943 P.2d 1369 (Wash. 1997).
     {N/R} Even if search warrant officer had was invalid for search of motel room, officer could still legally enter based on arrest warrants he also had; police chief's alleged awareness that an officer twice executed warrant to search motel room could not be a basis to impose liability on
     chief or municipality, since chief also knew, on the second occasion, that the officer also had valid arrest warrants. Simms v. Village of Albio, N.Y. 115 F.3d 1098 (2nd Cir. 1997).
     {N/R} Male officer was not required to bring female officers along while executing search warrant on home where he knew female residents would be present and dressed for bed; requiring presence of female officers in all such circumstances would hinder police in efficient performance of their duties. Laise v. City of Utica, 970 F.Supp. 605 (E.D. Mich. 1997).
     289:13 Officer's learning that the residential house manager of a facility for parolees and drug addicts allegedly lied on his firearms permit application, and presence of guns in manager's private apartment in the facility did not create exigent circumstances allowing warrantless entry and seizure of the weapons, Massachusetts high court rules; state statutory scheme for gun ownership gave holder of permit right to appeal any permit revocation and to possess weapons pending any such appeal Pasqualone v. Gately, 422 Mass 398, 662 N.E.2d 1034 (1996).
     289:14 Warrantless entry into home to seize dog sought for violating city "leash" ordinance was not justified by "exigent circumstances" Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 777 (Cal App. 1996).
     290:21 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for allowing television news crew to accompany them while executing a search warrant on a residence; federal appeals court rules that it was not "clearly established" at the time of the search that such conduct violated the Fourth Amendment Parker v. Boyer, 93 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 1996).
     290:30 Detention of naked female resident of home in bathroom during execution of search warrant on residence was not unreasonable and refusal to allow her to leave bathroom during security sweep to get dressed did not violate her privacy rights; officers' actions were "prudent" under circumstances during execution of search warrant for drugs and guns, and female officer was summoned to take charge of female resident Crosby v. Hare, 932 F.Supp. 490 (WDNY 1996).
     291:42 City could not be liable for alleged excessive use of force while search warrant for residence was being executed, in the absence of any evidence of a municipal custom or policy of encouraging or tolerating the use of excessive force while executing search warrants or the execution of illegal search warrants Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988 (10th Cir. 1996).
     291:46 Frequent visitor to residence, who went there to aid an elderly woman who previously was her neighbor, had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence and could sue on allegation that officers entered without knocking and announcing when they executed search warrant; factual issues about whether officers did knock and announce and whether front door opened and quickly shut prevented federal appeals court from addressing legal issues surrounding denial of officer's motion for qualified immunity Bonner v. DR Anderson, 81 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 1996).
     291:47 California federal court jury awards $200,000 in damages to commercial nude social club where patrons may "disrobe, socialize and dance in the nude and/or engage in sexual acts" on claim that city harassed the business Poppell v. City of San Diego, U.S. Dist. Ct., San Diego Ca, reported in The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, p. 1 (November 18, 1996).
     293:78 Even if law enforcement officers knowingly misrepresented certain facts to a court to obtain a search warrant for an auto salvage business, there was no Fourth Amendment violation because a warrantless search of such a business was authorized under state law based on the nature of the business; further, unchallenged portions of application for warrant provided basis for probable cause for a search, even with challenged material struck Schwartz v. Pridy, 94 F.3d 453 (8th Cir. 1996).
     293:79 Arrestee who was convicted of an offense and whose conviction was upheld on appeal, could not sue police officers for conducting an illegal search of his motel room when he had already litigated the issue of the legality of the search during the criminal proceedings, and the legality of the search had been upheld Lato v. Sieverman, 919 F.Supp. 336 (CD Cal 1996). Editor's Note: " See also Wallace v. Roche, 921 F.Supp. 946 (E.D.N.Y. 1996), which similarly dismissed a federal civil rights lawsuit against officers based on the fact that the issues presented before the state court in the criminal proceeding during a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence were identical to those in the federal civil rights proceeding
     295:111 Deputies and state employees were entitled to qualified immunity in suit brought by operator of animal shelter searched pursuant to warrant; presence of television camera crew did not violate plaintiff's rights as search warrant explicitly authorized videotaping and photographing during search Stack v. Killian, 96 F.3d 159 (6th Cir. 1996).
     299:174 Warrantless search of apartment with weapons drawn was justified by exigent circumstances when officers were in active pursuit of violent murder suspect. Bunch v. City of Elizabeth City, 945 F.Supp. 899 (E.D.N.C. 1996).
     299:174 Police officers who obtained and executed search warrant for the search of "all persons" present in two residences were not entitled to qualified immunity; affidavit for warrant did not establish probable cause that all persons present were participants in crime; judicial approval of warrant did not alter result Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 1996).
     {N/R} Officers who had a reasonable belief that there was someone inside house in immediate peril of bodily harm entitled them to qualified immunity from federal civil rights claim based on failure to knock and announce before entering Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 1996).
     283:100 Plain clothes officers were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no "clearly established" requirement that they announce their identity and purpose while executing search warrant on business premises; officer reasonably believed that suspect was reaching for a weapon when he shot and paralyzed him; municipalities could not be held liable in the absence of evidence of a municipal policy, custom, or usage St Hilaire v. City of Laconia, 71 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 1995).
     283:99 Police officer was entitled to qualified immunity for warrantless entry into apartment when landlord told him that water was leaking into premises below, interfering with provision of heat and hot water for whole building Osipova v. Dinkins, 907 F.Supp. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
     277:5 Federal appeals court rules that qualified immunity protects individual civil rights defendants from liability for costs and attorneys' fees even in actions for injunctive and declaratory relief D'Aguanno v. Gallagher, 50 F.3d 877 (11th Cir. 1995).
     277:14 Phone call reporting possible burglary, together with open door, lights on, television on, and failure of anyone inside house to respond to police shouts provided exigent circumstances justifying warrantless entry into home and brief pat down search of man inside who refused to identify himself. Murdock v. Stout, 54 F.3d 1437 (9th Cir. 1995).
     277:14 Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for breaking into wrong home while executing valid search warrant for drug raid; federal appeals court rules that jury must determine whether mistaken entry into wrong house one block from target premises was reasonable Dawkins v. Graham, 50 F.3d 532 (8th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity]
     278:29 Federal appeals court upholds jury verdict that police sergeant did not act unreasonably in inviting private security officer to accompany police executing search warrant on private residence, despite fact that search warrant named stolen property other than the property security officer was concerned with as the object of the search Bills v. Aseltine, 52 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 1995).
     282:93 Warrantless search of home seeking for child was unreasonable, but plaintiff was not entitled to an award of attorneys' fees after only nominal damages were awarded; plaintiff waived issue of punitive damages by failing to raise it after verdict on liability was announced but before jury had been dismissed Caruso v. Forslund, 47 F.3d 27 (2nd Cir. 1995). [Cross-references: Attorneys' Fees: For Plaintiff; Damages: Punitive]
     282:94 Deputy who had obtained search warrant for residence was not entitled to qualified immunity when he subsequently led other officers to search a nearby residence with a different address Hartsfield v. Lemacks, 50 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1995).
     284:125 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for initial mistake in entering wrong level of building while executing search warrant, but appeals court finds factual issues as to at what point they realized they were in the wrong place, requiring denial of qualified immunity on reasonableness of subsequent searches and seizures and use of force Pray v. City of Sandusky, 49 F.3d 1154 (6th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity]
     284:126 City of Boston reaches $1 million settlement with family of African-American minister who died of heart attack after mistaken raid on his apartment Williams v. Boston, U.S. Dist. Ct. Boston, Mass, reported in The New York Times, National Edition, pA10 (April 25, 1996).
     285:142 Jury instructions which allowed imposition of liability on an individual officer involved in search of residence on the basis of the results of the "team effort" of the 60 officers present rather than on the basis of his own conduct were erroneous, requiring a new trial in suit brought by residence occupants Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292 (9th Cir. 1996).
     286:157 Trial court improperly ruled that unannounced entry into residence was necessarily unlawful; court order gave state troopers right to enter to enforce child visitation, and circumstances could be interpreted as providing a basis to believe that the occupant inside was preparing to use "physical violence" to avoid compliance with court order; even if entry was illegal, this did not automatically make any use of force to arrest plaintiff excessive Bodine v. Warwick, 72 F.3d 393 (3rd Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Assault and Battery: Physical]
     286:158 Second warrantless search of home was not justified by exigent circumstances when officers had already determined, during first search, that missing child was not on the premises, and no new information was presented in the ensuing eighteen hours Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707 (3rd Cir. 1996).
     {N/R} Temporary detention of persons present during drug raid on apartment for approximately 15 minutes was not unreasonable Baker v. Monroe Township, 50 F.3d 1186 (3rd Cir. 1995).
     {N/R} Felony suspect had no reasonable privacy interest in either public street or yard of residence where he was staying Fontenot v. Cormier, 56 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 1995).
     {N/R} Child's consent to entry into residence was sufficient to allow search by guardian ad litem and grandparents of child did not have a legitimate privacy interest in closet in child's bedroom Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540 (11th Cir. 1995).
     {N/R} Evidence presented created a factual issue for a jury to decide as to whether or not officers acted reasonably in making initial warrantless raid on bar or in subsequent raid during which everyone present was allegedly detained for two to three hours Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 1995).
     268:61 Search warrant authorizing search of "birthing clinic" for evidence of practicing medicine without a license did not justify seizure of family and their newborn baby on the premises, search of mother's overnight bag, and seizure of their personal videotape of afterbirth experience; federal appeals court holds that no objectively reasonable officer would have thought the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment Hummel-Jones v. Strope, 25 F.3d 647 (8th Cir. 1994).
     269:77 Officers acted unreasonably, during home search, when they carried disabled man with multiple sclerosis from his sick bed to living room couch without providing him something to cover his genitals and left him there handcuffed and sitting up for two hours rather than returning him to his bed after his bedroom had been searched Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1994).
     269:78 Police officers acted reasonably in seeking and executing search warrant for residence based on confidential informant's tip and their own verification of his information; fact that narcotics suspect did not actually live at home, as they thought, but rather frequently visited there, did not alter result George v. City of St Louis, 26 F.3d 55 (8th Cir. 1994).
     270:93 Warrantless search of banquet hall in which Gypsy meeting was taking place results in $100,000 settlement in suit claiming that officers detained 70 persons for up to three hours and made "ethnic slurs" when detainees objected Johns v. DeLeonardis, No 92C2547, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill. Dec 2, 1994, reported in The Natl. Law Jour., p. A10 (Dec 19, 1994).
     271:108 Police chief and officer were entitled to qualified immunity for warrantless probes into home of armed man barricaded in his house for six hours; appeals court rules, however, that warrantless probes were not justified by exigent circumstances when man inside had not pointed gun at anyone or threatened to use it; city was liable for policy of routinely failing to obtain warrants in "critical incidents" regardless of circumstances O'Brien v. City of Grand Rapids, 23 F.3d 990 (6th Cir. 1994).
     271:110 Affidavits for search warrants stating that officers detected odors associated with drug manufacturing coming from residences were sufficient to provide probable cause, federal appeals court rules Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d 1388 (5th Cir. 1994).
     {N/R} Sweep searches of low-income housing aimed at reducing crime did not violate equal protection or substantive due process, when stated purpose was enforcement of city housing and fire codes; targeting high crime areas for housing code enforcement sweeps to reduce crime was rational Armendariz v. Penman, 31 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 1994).
     {N/R} Officers were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for mistaken search of house based on warrant containing description which fit both of two adjacent houses Richardson v. Oldham, 12 F.3d 1373 (5th Cir. 1994).
     New York Mental Hygiene Law and information officers had that man was throwing things within apartment and was allegedly disturbed justified their warrantless entry into man's apartment Thornton v. City of Albany, 831 F.Supp. 970 (NDNY 1993).
     Plain view seizure of stolen camera from pawn shop was permissible, but there were factual questions as to whether officer violated state statute in seizing it to return it to person reporting it stolen, rather than following statutory procedure G & G Jewelry, Inc v. City of Oakland, 989 F.2d 1093 (1993).
     Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of civil rights lawsuit against individual federal agent for allegedly supplying misleading information in search warrant affidavit; court rules that "heightened pleading standard" requiring allegation of specific facts showing that agent knew or had reason to know his statements were false was required and was not met Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449 (9th Cir), cert denied, 114 S.Ct. 731 (1994), rehearing denied, 114 S.Ct. 1342 (1994).
     Warrantless seizure and disposition of stolen ring from pawnshop violated pawnshop owner's Fourth Amendment and due process rights; officer should have obtained search warrant Winters v. Board of County Commissioners, 4 F.3d 848 (10th Cir. 1993).
     $98 million settlement in civil rights lawsuit over six-site search of businesses and residences owned by business people and seizure of 100 boxes of business and personal financial records; suit claimed search warrants were obtained by misrepresentation and searches were intended to damage plaintiffs' businesses and cause emotional distress Wall v. Gwinnett County, No 90-CV-1345-JEC, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ga August 6, 1993
     Occupants of home searched without a warrant, consent, or reason to believe that suspect sought was present there awarded $13,500 in damages Guy v. ABC Insurance Co, 629 So.2d 1350 (La App. 1993).
     Jury properly found that officers' warrantless search of woman's residence, seeking another woman's child, was unreasonable; plaintiff who failed to prove actual damages, however, was only entitled to an award of $1 in damages, and no attorneys' fees Caruso v. Forslund, 842 F.Supp. 1497 (D.Conn 1994).
     Arrestee's wife could not bring lawsuit for loss of consortium resulting from her husband's lawful incarceration after he pled guilty to criminal offense, despite her claim that a search warrant for their residence which uncovered evidence that led to his arrest was based on false statements by confidential informant Tate v. Derifield, 510 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa, 1994).
     Parole officers making an arrest with a warrant of a parolee at his home were entitled to qualified immunity for making a search between a box spring and mattress to look for weapons when they had a reasonable belief that another individual, thought to be potentially dangerous, might also be on the premises Crooker v. Metallo, 5 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1993).
     Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for making a warrantless non-consensual entry into a third party's home to make an arrest of a fleeing misdemeanant he was in hot pursuit of for a misdemeanor committed in his presence Goines v. James, 433 S.E.2d 572 (W.Va. 1993).
     Search of "former ex-felon's" residence based on his admitted possession of firearms was not a violation of his rights, despite his discharge from probation, when he had failed to apply to state to have his civil rights, including the right to possess firearms, restored Baker v. Elko County, 828 F.Supp. 798 (D.Nev 1993).
     Officers who made an unannounced entry at the rear door of an apartment after other officers had already entered through the front door did not violate apartment occupants' rights; male officer's brief frisk of nightgown clad female occupant was reasonable, and a requirement that such frisks be carried out only by female officers would be unduly burdensome Collier v. Locicero, 820 F.Supp. 673 (D.Conn 1993).
     City liable for $165 million to homeowners whose residence was mistakenly searched because it was next to a house named in a search warrant Kegler v. City of Dearborn Heights, Mich, Wayne County Cir. Ct, No 91-116095 No, June 11, 1993, reported in 36 ATLA Law Rptr. 327 (Nov 1993).
     Officer who mistakenly entered the house next door to the one for which he was executing a search warrant did not violate the occupants' civil rights when he entered only for enough time to ascertain that the correct house was next door Linely v. DeMoss, 83 Ohio App. 3d 594, 615 N.E.2d 631 (1992).
     Warrant less search of bar following execution of arrest warrants on female dancers for lewd conduct was justified as an "administrative inspection" under Michigan's liquor laws, and did not constitute a violation of constitutional rights Hamilton v. Lokuta, 803 F.Supp. 82 (E.D. Mich 1992).
     Criminal defendant's guilty plea in prosecution based on evidence seized during search of his apartment did not bar him from bringing a federal civil rights lawsuit against officers challenging the constitutionality of the search when he abandoned a motion to suppress the evidence in the criminal case, so that the issue was not "actually litigated" Linnen v. Armainis, 991 F.2d 1102 (3d Cir. 1993).
     Officer's alleged theft of one can of soda pop while executing search warrant on business was sufficient to state a federal civil rights claim Hessel v. O'Hearn, 977 F.2d 299 (7th Cir. 1992).
     Determination, in prior criminal proceeding, that search of apartment pursuant to search warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment barred the apartment resident's later federal civil rights claim that his Fourth Amendment privacy rights were violated by the search Munz v. Parr, 972 F.2d 971 (8th Cir. 1992).
     Sheriff's search of residence, supported by warrant based on reliable confidential information concerning drug sales in home, was objectively reasonable Drum v. Fountain, 788 F.Supp. 487 (D.Kan 1992).
     Update: U.S. Marshal's' "dragnet" style raid on homeless shelter, initially based on the search for a single fugitive, violated the residents' Fourth Amendment rights Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Unknown Agents, 797 F.Supp. 7 (DDC 1992).
     City, county, Sheriff and deputies were not liable for breaking into citizen's apartment while pursuing a suspect on an outstanding misdemeanor arrest warrant Coleman v. City of Dothan, 598 So.2d 873 (Ala 1992).
     Deputy sheriffs' assistance to employees of a private trailer camp in illegally evicting a trailer home without a court order "implicated" the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures; Supreme Court holds that Fourth Amendment protects property even when privacy or liberty is not interfered with Soldal v. Cook County, Illinois, 61 USLW 4019 (Dec 8, 1992).
     Fourth Amendment applied to search of homeless shelter; shelter operators, shelter director, and 500 occupants of shelter could sue U.S. Marshals who woke sleeping homeless persons during raid to see whether any matched photo of fugitive community for Creative Non-Violence v. Unknown Agents, 791 F.Supp. 1 (DDC 1992).
     Landlord whose property was damaged when police lawfully executed a no-knock search warrant on a tenant was entitled to compensation for a "physical taking" of his property Wallace v. Atlantic City, 257 NJ Super 404, 608 A.2d 480 (NJ Super L 1992).
     Mississippi deputies who obtained search warrant but did not participate in search were entitled to qualified public official immunity from liability for damages allegedly occurring during search; deputies who executed warrant were not entitled to such immunity Barrett v. Miller, 599 So.2d 559 (Miss 1992).
     Officers had "arguable" probable cause to obtain search warrants for two houses based on three children's "explicit" and "detailed" descriptions of alleged satanic ritual sexual abuse occurring there; defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity Lowe v. Aldridge, 958 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1992).
     Police officers who invited private security guard to accompany them during execution of search warrant were not entitled to summary judgment in homeowner's civil rights suit over guard's search for items not specified in search warrant Bills v. Aseltine, 958 F.2d 697 (6th Cir. 1992).
     Individual officers not liable for entry with "no knock" warrants into suspected crack house executed via breaking through an exterior wall; city might be liable, under Minnesota state constitution, for compensable "taking" of property if building owners were innocent third parties with no involvement in the criminal activity in their building McGovern v. City of Minneapolis, 480 N.W.2d 121 (Minn. App. 1992).
     Couple whose house was mistakenly searched pursuant to a search warrant for an adjoining house could sue officer who obtained warrant based on informant's description of the "second house on the right"; officer was not entitled to qualified immunity Navarro v. Barthel, 952 F.2d 331 (9th Cir. 1991).
     Oklahoma statute allowing police officers to conduct warrant less inspections of pawnshops did not violate Fourth Amendment rights of store owner in whose shop stolen items were seized S & S Pawn Shop Incorporated v. City of Del City, 947 F.2d 432 (10th Cir. 1991).
     Sheriff and deputy were not entitled to qualified immunity for alleged warrant less digging up of pasture in search for murder victim's body; "open fields" doctrine did not apply to search of land below surface Husband v. Bryan, 946 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1991).
     Movement of trailer home from trailer camp, without an effort to search it, was not a "seizure" prohibited by the Fourth Amendment; deputies who stood by to prevent owners from opposing eviction not liable despite absence of a court eviction order Soldal v. County of Cook, 942 F.2d 1073 (7th Cir. 1991).
     Homeowners subjected to illegal warrant less search of their house, but suffering no consequential damages were entitled to an award of $1 plus attorneys' fees of $12,83334 Ruggiero v. Krzeminski, 928 F.2d 558 (2nd Cir. 1991).
     Officer armed with arrest warrant for fugitive could lawfully search the fugitive's parents' house, then occupied by a third party, when they reasonably (but incorrectly). thought the fugitive was living there; even if search did violate the Fourth Amendment, officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably relied on advice of prosecutor and judge that arrest warrant was sufficient Bratton v. Toboz, 764 F.Supp. 965 (M.D. Pa 1991).
     Warrantless entry onto busy premises to search for and abate nuisance violated fourth amendment Conner v. City of Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 (9th Cir. 1990).
     Search warrant for house was adequate even without statements in affidavit as to reliability of confidential informant when it indicated that informant had made a "controlled buy" of drugs in the premises to be searched Polk v. Williams, 565 So.2d 1387 (Fla App. 1990).
     Officers' use of flashing squad car lights when coming to home to accompany third party who was removing her property from home was not unreasonable seizure; homeowner could not recover from officers or city for heart attack following incident Lenn v. Gentry, 762 F.Supp. 1342 (WS D Ind 1990).
     Officer's use of SWAT team and searching furniture and behind wall coverings while executing search warrant for business records upon radio station was not unreasonable; plaintiff showed no unconstitutional policy by city; prosecutor who participated in search was absolutely immune Pachaly v. City of Lynchburg, 897 F.2d 723 (4th Cir. 1990).
     Officers had no right to enter home to seize child and deliver her to non custodial police officer father without court order, absent emergency circumstances; denial of qualified immunity upheld Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74 (2nd Cir. 1991).
     Homeowners failed to show that two no-knock entries of their house by officers armed with search warrants for drugs were unreasonable as not based on exigent circumstances; even if searches were constitutionally unreasonable, no city policy or custom causing such violations was shown Fenner v. Dawes, 748 F.Supp. 404 (E.D. Va 1990).
     California statutes allow officers to seize property from pawnbrokers identified as stolen, as well as to place a "hold" on it Christians v. Chester, 267 Cal.Rptr. 124 (Cal Ap 1990).
     Officers conducting search of house who removed valuable silver for safekeeping and may have "tipped off" IRS, which executed tax levy on silver, entitled to qualified immunity Russelll v. Hardin, 879 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1989).
     Supervisory personnel were entitled to qualified immunity for alleged illegal aerial and ground search of rural driveway Williams v. Garrett, 722 F.Supp. 254 (WD Va 1989).
     Officer who obtains search warrant for wrong residence as "dope house" by making materially false statements knowingly or recklessly may be liable for civil rights violation Hill v. McIntyre, 884 F.2d 271 (6th Cir. 1989).
     Employers and workers could sue immigration & naturalization service for "pattern and practice" of unconstitutional workplace raids targeting Hispanic persons for questioning and detention Pearl Meadows Mushroom Farm, Inc v. Nelson, 723 F.Supp. 432 (N.D.Cal 1989).
     Officer could seize furs not listed in search warrant when he had probable cause to believe they were stolen; affidavit had sufficient information for issuance of warrant Kaiser v. Lief, 874 F.2d 732 (10th Cir. 1989).
     Up to 50 homosexual and bisexual men who frequented gay bar to receive $5,000 each in damages for police raid Patrykus v. Gomilla, U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill. reported in Chicago Sun Times, August 18, 1989
     Exigent circumstances of alleged kidnapping justified warrantless search of residence Harris v. City of Kansas City, 714 F.Supp. 1138 (D.Kan 1989).
     Italian bar owner awarded $295,000 compensatory, $10,500 punitive damages for frequent harassive searches of business, forcing him to sell it at a loss Benigni v. City of Hemet, 868 F.2d 307 (9th Cir. 1989).
     Federal court declines to create direct right of action for violation of Colorado State Constitutional Provision prohibiting unreasonable searches Specht v. Jensen, 863 F.2d 700 (10th Cir. 1988).
     Drug raid on wrong house with search warrant results in $850,000 jury award Golovich v. City of Vallejo, Vallejo Superior Court, Calif, reported in Vallejo Times Herald, p. A1, October 8, 1988
     Private club of gay men and lesbians denied injunction against assaultive and insulting behavior in future raids because of prior police conduct Travelers Social Club v. City of Pittsburgh, 685 F.Supp. 929 (WD Pa 1988).
     City policy to enforcing "pawnbroker seizure statute" allowing police to take property in pawnbroker possession upon application of purported owner violated due process Florida Pawnbrokers v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 699 F.Supp. 888 (S.D.Fla 1988).
     No liability for police drug raid on wrong premises Kolko v. City of Rochester, 461 N.Y.S.2d 650 (App. 1983).
     City could be liable for failure to have policy regarding seizure of property Odal Typographers, Inc v. City of New York, 560 F.Supp. 558 (S.D.NY 1983).
     Police officers illegally seized child from unwed father Dennison v. Vietch, 560 F.Supp. 435 (D. Minn. 1983).
     No warrant needed to enter onto premises to inform owners of citizen complaints; no liability for not removing media from premises Avenson v. Zegart, 577 F.Supp. 958 (D. Minn. 1984).
     Sheriff acted properly by not forcing entry into house to execute writ for repossession of property Red House Furniture Co v. Smith, 306 S.E.2d 130 (N.C. App. 1983). and 313 S.E.2d 569 (N.C. 1984).
     Officer could be individually liable for entering house without warrant Rollins By Agosta v. Farmer, 731 F.2d 533 (8th Cir. 1984).
     Warrantless entry to seize doctor's drugs available to children justified Mann v. Cannon, 731 F.2d 54 (1st Cir. 1984).
     Police must return slot machines to owners Bale v. San Jose Police Dept, 204 Cal.Rptr. 514 (App. 1984).
     Sheriff not entitled to commission for levying on wrong property Petition of Associated Food Stores, Inc, 477 N.Y.S.2d 80 (Nassau County 1984).
     Federal jurisdiction granted since claims commission has no jurisdiction over counties and municipalities Bumbarner v. Bloodworth, 738 F.2d, 966 (8th Cir. 1984).
     City liable for policy of forced entry to arrest traffic violators who sped home King v. City of Ft Wayne, Ind, 590 F.Supp. 414 (N.D.Ind 1984).
     Car registration linked to address insufficient reason to enter home without a warrant to search for robber Llaguno v. Mingey, 739 F.2d 1186 (7th Cir. 1984).
     Eyewitness informant served as probable cause to obtain warrant, despite that no contraband was found Turngren v. King County, Dept of Pub Saf, 686 P.2d, 1110 (Wash App1984).
     Search following informant's information upheld by jury Carter v. Jacobsen, 748 F.2d 487 (8th Cir. 1984).
     U.S. Supreme Court refuses to review case against police for seizing stolen property at pawnshop; pawnshop has property interest in stolen items Williams v. Wolfenbarger, 774 F.2d 358 (10th Cir. 1985). Tannery v. Wolfenbarger, 774 F.2d 358 (10th Cir. 1985).
     Just because a police manual didn't contain rules on searches doesn't infer policy/custom of illegal activity Caiani v. Town of Walpole, 624 F.Supp. 311 (D.Mass 1985).
     City accused of using armored machines to ram houses to gain access Langford v. Gates, 610 F.Supp. 120 (DC Cal 1985).
     Search valid despite wrong address on warrant Lyons v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 737 (8th Cir. 1985).
     Failure to obtain correct address was discretionary Schulte v. City of Dodge City, Kan, 630 F.Supp. 327 (D. Kan 1986).
     Ten-hour siege subjects city, city council members, and police chief to civil rights suit Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478 (9th Cir. 1986).
     California Supreme Court rules on use of battery rams and "flashbangs"; rams need magistrate approval, but "flash bangs" do not Langford v. Superior Court (Gates), 233 Cal.Rptr. 387 (Cal 1987).
     Police aren't required to know for certain which items are stolen before seizing them pursuant to warrant Perlman v. City of Chicago, 801 F.2d 262 (7th Cir. 1986).
     Juror's arrest while deliberations were in recess and his failure to disclose he had relatives on the force not grounds for new trial Olson v. Bradrick, 645 F.Supp. (D. Conn 1986).
     Entry into apartment, search and arrest of tenant was not illegal when sub-tenant consented to police entry Charles v. Odum, 664 F.Supp. 747 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
     Officers did not have qualified immunity for search of pawnshop without warrant or exigent circumstances Wolfenbarger v. Williams, 826 F.2d 930 (10th Cir. 1987).
     FBI agents could not be held liable for search by other officers participating in same overall investigation Ghandi v. Police Dept of City of Detroit, 823 F.2d 959 (6th Cir. 1987).
     Failure of individual to appeal probable cause determination authorizing administrative search did not preclude filing civil rights lawsuit over search for unvaccinated dogs Cahill v. Montgomery County, 528 A.2d 527 (Md App. 1987).
     $235,000 awarded for officers' search of home and office using repossession order Sprecht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516 (10th Cir. 1987).
     Homeowner consented to warrantless search by stepping aside and failing to object to entry. Johnson v. Smith County, Tex, 834 F.2d 479 (5th Cir. 1987).
     Homosexual and bisexual men who frequented gay bar can bring class action lawsuit over police raid Patrykus v. Gomilla, 121 F.R.D. 357 (N.D.Ill. 1988).
     " See also: Attorney's Fees: For Defendants, Defenses: Collateral Estoppel, False Arrest/Imprisonment: Improper Detention, Governmental Liability: Sheriffs/Constables, Negligence: Property of Others, Privacy, Search and Seizure: Person.

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu