CA10: Defendant was occupant of premises subject to detention under Summers even though he was asleep in the car when SW executed

Officers came to defendant’s property with a search warrant, and they found him asleep in the car. One officer tapped on the window with a gun to wake him up. Defendant was removed from the car and handcuffed face down on the ground. He refused to consent to a search of the car, and a drug dog was brought in and alerted on the car. It was searched finding 250g of methamphetamine. Defendant’s seizure and detention was valid under Summers as an occupant of the house, albeit outside at the time. United States v. Johnson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4330 (10th Cir. March 3, 2011) (unpublished):

In light of Summers and Muehler, Mr. Johnson’s first argument is unavailing. As long as a person is an occupant of the premises identified in a search warrant, officers have “categorical” authority to detain him or her for the duration of the search. Id. at 98. Whether the detention in fact facilitates one of the governmental interests acknowledged in Summers—-preventing flight, minimizing risk, or completing the search in an orderly manner—-is irrelevant.

That one officer intended to detain Mr. Johnson for investigative purposes is of no consequence. See Aplt. Br. at 14. The relevant question is whether the officers have the authority to detain a citizen—not their subjective intent in doing so. United States v. Lara-Garcia, 478 F.3d 1231, 1234 (10th Cir. 2007).