CA9: No QI for nearly destroying a house in a search for a person to arrest

Summary judgment and qualified immunity were properly denied where officers searching for someone other than the plaintiff in plaintiff’s house [apparently] gratuitously nearly destroyed it, breaking all windows, toilets, leaving water running in the house, appliances, furniture, and a car outside. Denby v. Engstrom, No. 23-15658, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6271 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025):

Here, the warrant authorized police to search the premises only to find and arrest Ochoa. Ochoa did not reside at Denby’s residence, but officers thought he may have entered it. After officers executed the warrant, it is undisputed Denby’s home sustained the following damage: all exterior windows were broken, and the chain-link fence and front door were destroyed, as were Denby’s PT Cruiser and another vehicle, all furniture in the home, the appliances, televisions, cushions, pillows, window coverings, shower doors, bathroom mirrors, a toilet, artwork, heirlooms, family pictures, clothes, and antiques. Many of these items were too small to hide Ochoa. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334-35 (1990) (permitting sweep of home incident to arrest “only to [conduct] a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found”). The district court correctly concluded that a jury could decide the use of force was unreasonable because Defendants’ tactics caused the destruction of numerous objects too small to hide Ochoa, and were therefore outside the scope of the warrant. See Hells Angels, 402 F.3d at 971.