Warrant for drugs on the premises authorized opening a safe found there

A search warrant for premises for drugs permitted search of a safe found in the premises. United States v. Lengen, 245 Fed. Appx. 426, 2007 FED App. 0402N (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished):

The principle of search and seizure jurisprudence is now settled, however, that “[a] lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area in which the object of the search may be found.” United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820, 102 S. Ct. 2157, 72 L. Ed. 2d 572 (1982). Thus, although a warrant to search for a stolen vehicle would not justify opening a small wall safe in a bedroom closet, judicial authorization to search a home for contraband drugs, money associated with drug trafficking, and drug paraphernalia would clearly justify the opening of doors, closets, drawers, safes, and other places where the listed items could be hidden. Consequently, the police in this case were not required to obtain a separate warrant to look in the safe found in the closet of the defendant’s bedroom.

On remand from Beard v. Whitmore Lake Sch. Dist., 402 F.3d 598, 601 (6th Cir. 2005), which held that teachers had qualified immunity for a strip search of students, the school district escaped liability, too, because it could not be shown that the school district was deliberately indifferent or failed to train the teachers in the school search policy [and it did not train them]. Beard v. Whitmore Lake Sch. Dist., 244 Fed. Appx. 607, 2007 FED App. 0410N (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).

Qualified immunity denied an officer involved in a search because the factual basis is fact bound. Duncan v. Jackson, 243 Fed. Appx. 890, 2007 FED App. 0415N (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).

Plaintiff had been arrested after giving a stranger a ride, but the stranger was fleeing the police and a crime. When the stranger was seen, the car was stopped and everybody detained. Plaintiff was put in a police car with the stranger just so the police could record their conversation, and it became immediately apparent that plaintiff was not involved in the stranger’s activities. They let the plaintiff go, but they did not return a gun of his at the scene for officer safety. There was no valid basis for claiming officer safety for keeping the gun, and plaintiff stated a claim for relief. The officer’s claim of qualified immunity also failed because, despite the fact that no case in point was found, the law was sufficiently clear on this point. Stewart v. Sotolongo, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45006 (M.D. Fla. June 21, 2007):

Accordingly, the issue for the Court to determine is whether the state of the law on October 6, 2005 gave the Officer Defendants fair warning that the retention of Plaintiff’s property overnight was unconstitutional. Hope, 536 U.S. at 741. The Court holds that it did:

While Plaintiff has not submitted any case law with similar facts in order to show that the Officer Defendants had fair warning that their conduct was unconstitutional, that is not fatal to his claim. Instead, as explained below, broad statements of principle in case law existed that made it obvious to a reasonable police officer in the Officer Defendants’ position that the retention of Plaintiff’s property overnight was unlawful.