CA10: Eight-hour seizure of home investigating OD before getting SW was unreasonable

“After Corban Elmore’s teenage son suffered a drug overdose at Elmore’s home, law-enforcement officers secured the scene and prohibited anyone from entering the house. The officers then continued to investigate and allowed almost eight hours to elapse before applying for a search warrant. Once they had a warrant in hand, the officers searched Elmore’s home and discovered two firearms in his bedroom. Elmore entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. Because the eight-hour seizure of Elmore’s home was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and because the exclusionary rule requires suppression of the firearms, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.” Applying Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001), the seizure of the home for eight hours when getting a search warrant was unreasonable. “We conclude that the seizure in this case violated the Fourth Amendment. Even assuming probable cause and exigency supported the initial seizure of Elmore’s home, that seizure became unreasonable when the officers made no effort to reconcile the competing interests at stake and extended the seizure longer than reasonably necessary to diligently obtain a search warrant.” United States v. Elmore, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12144 (10th Cir. May 21, 2024).

Plaintiff doesn’t get partial summary judgment on his Franks claim within a malicious prosecution case. [It’s fact bound and reads like hundreds of others, so I won’t bore you.] Folks v. Sainato, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89888 (E.D. La. May 20, 2024).*

“In sum, [plaintiffs] have failed to direct the undersigned to a case directly on-point or existing precedent placing the lawfulness of the challenged searches and seizures beyond debate. See Wesby, 583 U.S. at 64. As such, they have failed to meet their burden of establishing the Officers and/or Vaughn are not entitled to qualified immunity as to Count One. Therefore, these defendants’ motions will be granted as to Count One on qualified immunity grounds.” Howell v. McCormick, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90102 (M.D. Tenn. May 20, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity, Reasonableness, Seizure, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.