{"id":594,"date":"2006-12-01T10:54:34","date_gmt":"2006-11-30T14:49:49","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2006-11-30T14:49:49","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=594","title":{"rendered":"Michigan v. Summers<\/em> does not grant blanket power to seize everybody who arrives at the place of a search"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Michigan District Judge holds that Summers does not grant carte blanche to detain every person who wanders into a search warrant being executed. United States v. Davenport, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85965 (E.D. Mich. November 28, 2006):<\/p>\n

Although the law, as set forth above, allows non-resident, non-occupant individuals that arrive at a residence that is the target of a search warrant to be detained while the search is being completed, the Court does not believe that the mere presence of a search warrant amounts to an unfettered blanket authorization to detain anyone the police may have a chance to encounter during their execution of the search warrant. In each of the cases extending the holding of Michigan v. Summers, the Sixth Circuit has carefully recognized the particular facts and circumstances that substantiate the legitimate law enforcement interests that support the warrantless seizure. See Fountain,<\/em> 2 F.3d at 663 (Officers faced “a confined, unfamiliar environment that was likely to be dangerous.”); Bohannon,<\/em> 225 F.3d at 617 (Given defendant’s intention to walk into house being searched, safety of officers and defendant was at risk.); United States v. Ridge, 329 F.3d 535, (6th Cir. 2003) (Officers who were searching a methamphetamine laboratory and received information that an armed third-party would soon be arriving at that location were justified in seizing the defendant without a warrant, when he arrived at the residence.).<\/p>\n

In the instant case, because evidentiary testimony was not presented at the initial hearing on Defendant’s motion, an articulable basis for the legitimate detention of Defendant pursuant to Summers, Fountain,<\/em> and Bohanon<\/em> has not yet been presented. Accordingly, because testimonial evidence and oral arguments could elucidate the officers’ legitimate interests in Defendant’s risk of flight, the risk of harm he presented to the officers, and whether Defendant could have, in any way, assisted in the orderly completion of the authorized search of the residence, the Court will set this matter for an evidentiary hearing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nexus for search warrant of Custom’s officer’s house was shown by fact that a shipment of evidence was received at his house. United States v. Schofield, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85343 (E.D. Va. November 22, 2006):<\/p>\n

The affidavit issued by Officer Izzard provided, inter alia,<\/em> facts alleging shipment of a package by Defendant to a residence used to make payments for immigration stamps, testimony of an alien that had traveled to the residence in order to obtain false papers, and phone records indicating calls from the residence to suspected co-conspirators. The affidavit also included a determination by the affiant, based on experience of the officer, that evidence related to the crime would likely be found at Defendant’s residence. All of this evidence provides an ample nexus between the alleged crimes and the residence to satisfy the criteria of Anderson<\/em> and Gates<\/em>. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officers had reasonable suspicion for detention of defendant. “Based on hundreds of hours of physical surveillance, wire intercepts, statements of informants, and controlled narcotics transactions, DEA had a substantial basis to believe that [his passenger] was trafficking narcotics. Indeed, Defendant acknowledged that DEA had probable cause to believe [the passenger] was a drug trafficker.” United States v. Rios-Ruiz, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85780 (D. Ore. November 22, 2006).*<\/p>\n

Entry on a federal arrest warrant led to a protective sweep and a plain view. United States v. Cantrell, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85623 (W.D. Mo. November 21, 2006).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP.b2evSmil Continue reading →<\/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-594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}