holding that it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to detain resident of home who was not target of search warrant at gunpoint and then handcuff for over two hours while search is executed; “The governmental interests in not only detaining, but using handcuffs, are at their maximum when, as here, a warrant authorizes a search for weapons and a wanted gang member resides on the premises.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to detain resident of home who was not target of search warrant at gunpoint and then handcuff for over two hours while search is executed; “The governmental interests in not only detaining, but using handcuffs, are at their maximum when, as here, a warrant authorizes a search for weapons and a wanted gang member resides on the premises.”
- holding that police executing a search warrant may detain occupants of the premises and those immediately outside while the search is conducted even in the absence of a particular suspicion that any individual located is involved in criminal conduct or poses a specific danger to the officers
- holding government had “maximum” interest in using handcuffs to detain suspect during search 11 of suspect’s home for deadly weapons, and observing that “in such inherently dangerous 12 situations, the use of handcuffs minimizes the risk of harm to both officers and occupants”
- holding that questioning a lawfully detained person on issues unrelated to the detention without independent reasonable suspicion to support the questions did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment because the questioning was not a “discrete Fourth Amendment event”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Davila v. N. Reg'l Joint Police Bd., 370 F. Supp. 3d 498 (2019)
Muehler , as discussed in greater detail above, is factually inapposite to this case and does not bolster Officer Bienemann's qualified immunity argument.
Distinguished by Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075 (2013)
” Id. at 98, 125 S.Ct. 1465. Muehler is inapposite.
Distinguished by Jim Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 697 F.3d 941 (2012)
” Id. at 98, 125 S.Ct. 1465. Muehler is inapposite.
Distinguished by State v. Amos, Unpublished Decision (5-31-2005), 2005 Ohio 2728 (2005)
Appellee argues Muehler is distinguishable, but we disagree.
The opinion
Justice Kennedy,
concurring.
I concur in the judgment and in the opinion of the Court. It does seem important to add this brief statement to help ensure that police handcuffing during searches becomes neither routine nor unduly prolonged.
The safety of the officers and the efficacy of the search are matters of first concern, but so too is it a matter of first concern that excessive force is not used on the persons detainéd, especially when these persons, though lawfully detained under Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692 (1981), are not themselves suspected of any involvement in criminal *103 activity. The use of handcuffs is the use of force, and such force must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances, Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989).
The reasonableness calculation under Graham is in part a function of the expected and actual duration of the search. If the search extends to the point when the handcuffs can cause real pain or serious discomfort, provision must be made to alter the conditions of detention at least long enough to attend to the needs of the detainee. This is so even if there is no question that the initial handcuffing was objectively reasonable. The restraint should also be removed if, at any point during the search, it would be readily apparent to any objectively reasonable officer that removing the handcuffs would not compromise the officers’ safety or risk interference or substantial delay in the execution of the search. The time spent in the search here, some two to three hours, certainly approaches, and may well exceed, the time beyond which a detainee’s Fourth Amendment interests require revisiting the necessity of handcuffing in order to ensure the restraint, even if permissible as an initial matter, has not become excessive.
That said, under these circumstances I do not think handcuffing the detainees for the duration of the search was objectively unreasonable. As I understand the record, during much of this search 2 armed officers were available to watch over the 4 unarmed detainees, while the other 16 officers on the scene conducted an extensive search of a suspected gang safe house. Even if we accept as true — as we must — the factual assertions that these detainees posed no readily apparent danger and that keeping them handcuffed deviated from standard police procedure, it does not follow that the handcuffs were unreasonable. Where the detainees outnumber those supervising them, and this situation could not be remedied without diverting officers from an extensive, complex, and time-consuming search, the continued use of handcuffs after the initial sweep may be justified, subject to *104 adjustments or temporary release under supervision to avoid pain or excessive physical discomfort. Because on this record it does not appear the restraints were excessive, I join the opinion of the Court.