The use of deadly force instead of spike strips to stop the defendant who had run a roadblock and was trying to outrun the police did not make the search of him and his car when he was finally stopped unreasonable. The defendant fled and was driving erratically, and the use of force here was reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Ramos, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107292 (S.D. Cal. October 6, 2010):<\/p>\n
The Court must determine whether the agents reasonably believed that the force used was necessary in order to protect themselves based upon the totality of the circumstances. “To assess the reasonableness of th[e] conduct, [a court] must balance the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion paying careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Guzman-Padilla, 573 F.3d at 886 (citations and quotations omitted). After the full presentation of evidence, the Court concludes that the interest of the government agents in protecting their safety was very strong in this case based upon the imminent and serious danger posed by the actions of the Defendant. The agents lawfully attempted to stop the vehicle based upon reasonable suspicion that the Defendant was engaged in criminal activity. Defendant refused to stop his vehicle and began a high speed encounter with border patrol. Defendant used dangerous means to attempt to avoid apprehension over a lengthy period of time. Defendant traveled over twenty miles in the dark on Interstate 8 at over one hundred miles per hour, weaving in and out of traffic posing a serious danger to the public.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Officers arrested people outside the house, and one of those detained was a neighbor \u201cliterally at the wrong place and the wrong time.\u201d After a security sweep, she was released and went back to her house. The premises were secured, and a search warrant was sought. She became a witness for the defense on the search issue, observing from her own place. The court found her testimony embellished because of the way she complained about her treatment when the police made the arrest. The warrant was valid, as was the search. United States v. Denson, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107374 (W.D. Pa. October 7, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading