CA6: Use of a flash bang device during a search was not unreasonable in 2004, and it still isn’t because court doesn’t decide

Factual disputes precluded summary judgment on an unreasonable search and excessive force claim where officers entered with a battering ram without knocking and used flash bang devices. As to the latter, the officers get qualified immunity because no case at the time of the search held flash bang devices unreasonable. [And, this court isn’t going to even decide that question (so there never will be a case in point).] Marmelshtein v. City of Southfield, 421 Fed. Appx. 596, 2011 FED App. 0283N (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).*

Defendant was arrested as an “internet traveler” who showed up for sex with a minor. Because the chat sessions talked about his bringing condoms and candy, the officers could search the vehicle under the automobile exception. United States v. Lanzon, 639 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011).*

The court of appeals failed to grant deference to the trial judge’s findings of fact, where the facts were in dispute. Meekins v. State, 340 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (with dissent).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.