{"id":5901,"date":"2012-03-11T11:50:32","date_gmt":"2011-08-14T10:20:21","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-08-14T10:20:21","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5901","title":{"rendered":"CA9: Pointing guns and handcuffing during drug raid was not unreasonable"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Executing a valid search warrant, officer forcibly entered into the plaintiff\u2019s apartment with guns drawn, 8-10 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence, and detained five occupants. It was not unreasonable for the officers to believe that any further delay in entering would be dangerous, futile, or ineffective, especially since the occupants were on notice that the police were outside and about to enter prior to the knock on the door. The force used by the officers to secure the premises was not unreasonable. Pointing guns at the plaintiff during the initial protective sweep was not unreasonable because the execution of a warrant to search for narcotics was the kind of transaction that could give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence. Moving the plaintiff to the living room and forcing her to the floor was also not unreasonable, as well as using handcuffs to detain the occupants while the residence was being secured. The detainment only took 15-20 minutes, and there was no evidence that the detainment was longer than necessary to permit the officers to conduct a protective sweep and secure the premises. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/memoranda\/2011\/08\/09\/10-35822.pdf\">Jama v. City of Seattle<\/a>, 446 Fed. Appx. 865 (9th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n<p>The fourth CI\u2019s information alone was enough to issue the search warrant, and it involved a controlled buy. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca7.uscourts.gov\/fdocs\/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&amp;shofile=10-1762_002.pdf\">United States v. Johnson<\/a>, 655 F.3d 594 (7th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n<p>The search of defendant\u2019s car was based on the automobile exception and seeing stolen property in plain view inside it. Gant did not apply. <a href=\"http:\/\/pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov\/opinion.pdf\/104939.U.pdf\">United States v. Southerland<\/a>, 442 Fed. Appx. 767 (4th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5901\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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-5901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5901","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=5901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5901\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}