{"id":2222,"date":"2008-08-31T17:26:46","date_gmt":"2008-07-05T09:47:56","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-07-05T09:47:56","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2222","title":{"rendered":"Officers had reasonable but mistaken belief that plaintiff was man wanted in arrest warrant on entry into house"},"content":{"rendered":"

USMS acted reasonably in mistaking plaintiff for the person they wanted at the address where he was found. El Bey v. Roop<\/a>, 530 F.3d 407, 2008 FED App. 0234P (6th Cir. 2008):<\/p>\n

We conclude, based on this evidence, that the officers on the scene did not act unreasonably in mistaking El Bey for Ray when El Bey answered their knock on the door. The officers’ actions, as alleged by El Bey, leave little doubt that they could have acted with more care in determining whether the person who answered the door was actually the subject of the arrest warrant. Nevertheless, we conclude that the officers–who already had reason to believe that Ray would be at 1580 Greenlake Drive–formed a reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief that El Bey was the subject of the arrest warrant in question.<\/p>\n

Even after viewing the facts in the light most favorable to El Bey, the officers were therefore justified in entering the residence to execute the arrest warrant, and they did not violate El Bey’s constitutional rights when they handcuffed him until they could determine whether or not he was the subject of the valid warrant that they possessed. See Hill v. California<\/em>, 401 U.S. 797, 802, 91 S. Ct. 1106, 28 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1971) (concluding that the officers acted reasonably in arresting a person who was in the apartment and fit the general description of a suspect for whom they had probable cause to arrest, and affirming the principle that “[w]hen the police have probable cause to arrest one party, and when they reasonably mistake a second party for the first party, then the arrest of the second party is a valid arrest” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. See Saucier<\/em>, 533 U.S. at 201 (“If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}