Claim stated for unnecessary damage during execution of a search warrant

Plaintiff stated a claim for unnecessary damage during execution of a search warrant where he showed officers used a pry bar to open the trunk of a car and apparently kicked in a closet door on a camper. Caviness v. Johnson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62225 (E.D. Okla. August 14, 2008):

Clearly, “officers … on occasion must damage property in order to perform their duty.” Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 258 (1979). Additionally, if the property damage results from mere negligence, no constitutional violation is demonstrated. Bergguist v. County of Cochise, 806 F.2d 1364, 1369 (9th Cir. 1986). However, in this case, Johnson has failed to provide evidence that either the damages resulting from the search were reasonable and necessary or that any damage that did occur was attributable to negligence alone. Consequently, this Court concludes Caviness has stated a Fourth Amendment constitutional claim as a result of the damages to his property which occurred during the execution of the search warrant.

Driver of car had apparent authority to consent to a search of a tote bag behind the defendant’s seat where neither admitted to the bag being theirs. Consent to search includes closed containers. United States v. Sparks, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17490 (2d Cir. July 24, 2008) (unpublished):

On the specific facts of this case, it was reasonable for the arresting officer to believe that Martin, who was driving and produced rental papers for the car, had such authority. The reasonableness of this belief could have been dispelled if, for example, either Sparks or Martin had indicated that the Tote Bag behind Sparks’s seat was his. But neither gave any indication that the Tote Bag belonged to Sparks, nor did the evidence suggesting that Sparks owned a separate suitcase on the back seat serve to indicate that he also owned the Tote Bag. Accordingly, we conclude that the officer reasonably believed that Martin had authority over the Tote Bag, and that this apparent authority validated Martin’s consent.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.