Plaintiff\u2019s claim that a forcible entry for a misdemeanor warrant fails because this circuit has held for 25 years that Payton applies to misdemeanor warrants. Plaintiff does state a claim, however, for failure to knock-and-announce before entry. First v. Hokett, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32014 (N.D.Okla. Feb. 23, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cBoutin’s overbreadth arguments also fail because the warrant \u2018was not \u201cso facially overbroad as to preclude reasonable reliance.\u201d\u2019 \u2026 Because the officers could reasonably rely on this warrant’s assessment of probable cause, the warrant was not facially overbroad. \u2026 And the officers properly relied on the warrant in good faith because it restricted seizure to documents from a set time period and prohibited seizure of certain categories of documents.\u201d United States v. Boutin<\/a>, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 4972 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Plaintiff\u2019s claim that a forcible entry for a misdemeanor warrant fails because this circuit has held for 25 years that Payton applies to misdemeanor warrants. Plaintiff does state a claim, however, for failure to knock-and-announce before entry. First v. Hokett, … Continue reading