{"id":4566,"date":"2011-01-11T14:25:39","date_gmt":"2010-08-21T00:08:54","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-08-20T09:30:54","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4566","title":{"rendered":"CA3: Officers executing SW in high crime area could exclude occupants solely for safety of the officers"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Allentown SWAT team executed a search warrant in a homicide case at a bar in a high crime area known for weapons possession and drug dealing. The defendant was a security guard at the bar who was kept outside away from the bar, and he admitted having a gun, but he was a felon. This was valid, solely on safety of the officers. (The warrant was to collect videotapes, no less.) United States v. Allen<\/a>, 618 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2010):<\/p>\n

The only law enforcement interest relevant to our case, and indeed the only part of the Summers<\/a> Court’s reasoning that is applicable to the facts here, is minimizing the risk of harm to the officers. Indeed, the District Court relied solely on this interest in denying Allen’s motion to suppress. We conclude that it was correct to do so because, per Rettele<\/a>, in certain situations safety concerns alone may authorize a brief detention of the occupants of an establishment during execution of a search warrant, and the distinction between a search for contraband and a search for evidence is largely immaterial.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There is no evidence that ICE violated the immigrant\u2019s rights in a warrantless arrest. \u201cIn any event, warrantless arrests of suspected illegal aliens are permissible in some situations, see 8 C.F.R. \u00a7 287.3 (2010), and there is no evidence that the government violated procedures associated with such an arrest in a way prejudicial to the petitioner in this case. See Martinez-Camargo, 282 F.3d at 492 (\u2018[T]he Supreme Court has held that where an administrative regulatory violation does not adversely affect a petitioner’s substantive rights an exclusionary remedy is not available.\u2019).\u201d Gutierrez-Berdin v. Holder<\/a>, 618 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\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-4566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4566","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=4566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}