Generalizations about drug dealers not enough to dispense with announcement; § 1983 case goes forward

In a knock-and-announce civil case over a drug raid where plaintiffs’ door was broken down and the search netted nothing, the plaintiffs alleged enough to overcome summary judgment and qualified immunity for unreasonableness of the entry. The lack of announcement was based on mere generalizations about drug dealers, and, under Richards, this is not enough. Andulan v. City of Seattle, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30811 (W.D. Wash. March 21, 2008).*

Defendant was not seized when he fled from officers trying to stop him. The offenses he committed in flight are not excluded. United States v. Eldridge, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96791 (W.D. N.Y. September 5, 2007).*

CI’s information was sufficiently corroborated to show probable cause. State v. Johnson, 286 Conn. 427, 944 A.2d 297 (2008).*

In response to defendant’s argument that the warrant lacked probable cause, the state responded with the good faith exception. The Virginia court held that the affidavit was not bare bones and provided a substantial basis for finding probable cause [essentially finding probable cause]. Lane v. Commonwealth, 51 Va. App. 565, 659 S.E.2d 553 (2008)*:

Given that the informant has provided past information that has proven to be correct, that the informant was personally on the property that was the subject of the warrant within 72 hours, and that the informant personally observed narcotics at that property and on appellant’s person, we conclude that the informant’s reliability was sufficiently established to provide a reasonable officer with some indicia of probable cause to support a belief that the warrant was valid. Thus, we find that the affidavit was not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause” as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress.