Directing plaintiffs to leave during execution of search warrant was not a seizure

Directing plaintiffs to leave during execution of a search warrant was not a seizure of them at all. Streater v. Cox, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14907 (E.D. Mich. February 28, 2008):

Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to damages against defendants George Harris and Michael Williams in their individual capacities because the two executed a search warrant at Plaintiffs’ place of employment March 16, 2005. They claim they were forced to leave work for six hours while Harris and Williams executed the warrant. Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim seems to implicate an unreasonable seizure–that by being forced to leave their place of employment, their movement was restricted, resulting in a form of seizure. However, the Supreme Court has held that “a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.” Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S. Ct. 2587, 69 L. Ed. 2d 340 (1981). In this case the plaintiffs were not “seized” in any way. They were, in fact, allowed to leave the work premises while a search was conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant.

There was ample probable cause shown in the affidavit for the search warrant, including a huge number of wiretaps. It would also be supported by the good faith exception. Other evidence found during the execution of the search warrant was in plain view. United States v. Martin, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14898 (E.D. Tenn. February 26, 2008)* (Pro se motion to suppress; not even a close call on PC.).

Defendant alleged that he found a search and seizure issue after he got to prison, but it was held waived. It was not a part of his IAC claim against his counsel. Griffith v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14845 (W.D. N.C. February 26, 2008).*