When is force unreasonable and excessive in executing a search warrant?
0February 5, 2025 by Tom Roberts, Esq.
Our legal team provides comprehensive insights into constitutional limits applicable to law enforcement officers. With a deep commitment to safeguarding your civil liberties, we navigate the nuances of excessive force claims, ensuring your voice is heard and your rights upheld as police officers are held accountable for their conduct.
4th Amendment requires searches be reasonable and not excessive in scope or force.
The right of the people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” is guaranteed by the U.S. Const. amend. IV
4th Amendment constrains Totalitarian destruction of which history is replete!
The emphasis most Fourth Amendment cases is on the need for officers to get a warrant, the requirement of probable cause, and the descriptive material within the warrant itself. However, the protections of the Amendment continue even when officers lawfully set foot inside the door.
Officers do not have unfettered discretion when executing a search warrant – reasonableness tracks with the nature and quality of the evidence to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment generally leaves it “to the discretion of the executing officers to determine the details of how best to proceed with the performance of a search authorized by warrant.” Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 257, 99 S. Ct. 1682, 60 L. Ed. 2d 177 (1979). A degree of latitude is fitting—in fact, necessary—because not all searches are alike: What is reasonably necessary to execute a search warrant tracks the nature and quantity of the evidence to be seized. Illegal substances often will be hidden; stolen goods may be stored to escape the eye; and the relevance of complex business records may not be obvious at first blush. Because “the needs of any given search will vary,” some flexibility in the execution of a warrant is appropriate. Gardner v. Evans, 920 F.3d 1038, 1050 (6th Cir. 2019).
Cybernet, LLC v. David, 954 F.3d 162, 168
Officers are not liable for all damages in executing a search warrant.
On occasion officers must damage property in order to perform their duty — but this does not give blanket permission to ransack the premises at will. Thus it follows that the “excessive or unnecessary destruction of property in the course of a search may violate the Fourth Amendment” and serve as a basis for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 71, 118 S. Ct. 992, 140 L. Ed. 2d 191 (1998).
Cybernet, LLC v. David, 954 F.3d 162, 168-169
Objective Reasonableness Standard
Determining when property damage is constitutionally excessive is assessed under a standard of objective reasonableness. 1) regulating conduct and not thought and 2) promoting evenhanded uniform enforcement of the law.
Is the damage to property reasonably necessary in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officers?
The test does not use hindsight nor whether it was the “least possible destructive means to execute a search warrant.” It is the “excessive or unnecessary destruction of property.” Exceeding what is right, proportionate, or desirable; immoderate, inordinate, extravagant.
Examples of Excessive Force:
- San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, 402 F.3d 962, 974 (9th Cir. 2005) (“In executing the warrants, the officers cut the mailbox off its post, jack-hammered the sidewalk outside the clubhouse, and broke the [plaintiff’s] refrigerator.”);
- Gary M. v. City of N. Charleston, No. 2:16-CV-01087-DCN, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156535, 2017 WL 4236542, at *2 n.2, *5 (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2017) (denying summary judgment for defendants in light of evidence that SWAT team destroyed laptop, television, sofa, washing machine, bed and bedframe, door frame, CPAP machine, coffee table, and swivel chair, and left glass all over the floor);
- Jackson ex rel. Jackson v. Suffolk Cty., 87 F. Supp. 3d 386, 402 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (photos taken by plaintiffs showed “flipped and cut furniture, a disassembled coat rack, property strewn across the floor of the basement, damage to ceramic bowls and a bird feeder stand, damage to picture frames, a scratched end table, and marks to backs of leather furniture”).
Examples of Damage with no liability:
- United States v. Becker, 929 F.2d 442, 447 (9th Cir. 1991) (the use of a jackhammer to break apart concrete instead of a concrete saw);
- Brown v. City of Utica, N.Y., 854 F. Supp. 2d 255, 262 (N.D.N.Y. 2012) a cracked glass cabinet door, a closet door off its hinges, garbage strewn outside the home” and “a radiator with its metal covering removed);
- Williams v. Alford, 647 F. Supp. 1386, 1392 (M.D. Ala. 1986) (evidence of holes knocked in a wall, destruction of stereo, and dumped trash)
Disclaimer
The materials are prepared for information purposes only. The materials are not legal advice. You should not act upon the information without seeking the advice of an attorney. Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship.
Category Civil Rights, Due Process, Fourth Amendment, General | Tags: 4th Amendment Search, damage to property from search, Fourth Amendment Search, police damage my property, sue police, unreasonable damage executing search warrant
0 comments
Sorry, comments are closed.
