Woman arrested and dragged out of bed nude and too tightly handcuffed and left nude for a while survived summary judgment

Plaintiff was arrested during a simultaneous drug raid on three houses in the night. She alleged she was dragged from bed nude, handcuffed behind her back, and the officers did not immediately attempt to get a bathrobe to cover her. She alleged the handcuffs were excessively tight for 45 minutes. “Here, allegedly plaintiffs Jor and Elizabeth Havens were subjected to an even more humiliating and abusive detention given the lack of clothing. The motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claim is denied as to all defendants who were present during the detention.” Havens v. City of Eugene, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50084 (D. Ore. July 6, 2007). Accord: Davage v. City of Eugene, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50337 (D. Ore. July 6, 2007) (plaintiffs in another house in the raid).

“Simply stated, ‘a person arrested with probable cause cannot cry false arrest …. and without a predicate constitutional violation, one cannot make out a prima facie case under § 1983.’ Juriss, 957 F.2d at 349 n.1.” Pritchett v. City of Chicago, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50391 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2007)* (ellipsis in original).

“An officer need not be certain that a crime has been committed for probable cause to exist to permit the seizure of evidence under the plain view doctrine. Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 67 (1992).” A warrant for drugs supported a plain view seizure of a gun because officers knew that defendant had a prior conviction. United States v. Armstrong, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50292 (D. Minn. July 10, 2007).*

“Plaintiff also has no claim of violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure as the Supreme Court has held that inmates do not possess such a right in relation to their prison cells. Hudson, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984).” Vandergriff v. DeLano, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50236 n.2 (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2007).*

Curtilage = home; probable cause + exigent circumstances required. United States v. Trejo, 492 F. Supp. 2d 659 (W.D. Tex. 2007):

It is well-established that “[a] warrantless intrusion into an individual’s home is presumptively unreasonable unless the person consents or probable cause and exigent circumstances justify the encroachment.” United States v. Jones, 239 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 2001). The Government concedes that the gated backyard of Trejo’s residence was part of the curtilage of the home. Govt’s Resp. 8-9. Entry into the backyard by the officers is thus analogous to entry into the home itself. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984) (noting that the curtilage “has been considered part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes”). Therefore, to validly enter Trejo’s backyard, the officers needed a warrant, consent, or probable cause and exigent circumstances. It is undisputed that a warrant was not obtained and consent was not given. Therefore, the Government must show the existence of probable cause and exigent circumstances. United States v. Wallen, 388 F.3d 161, 164 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[W]arrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable, and the government bears the burden of establishing circumstances to justify them.”).

[Here there were exigent circumstances, elaborately explained.]