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