Johnson v. Manitowoc County, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4648

Johnson, a landlord in Manitowoc County, rented to Steven Avery in 2003; Avery later faced murder-related investigation leading to warrants targeting Johnson’s property.
Warrants were executed by Calumet County and Manitowoc County officers focusing on Johnson’s trailer, garage, and surrounding land in 2006, seeking items tied to Halbach’s disappearance.
Officers removed portions of Johnson’s trailer interior and garage floor, including jackhammering about eight feet of concrete, damaging property and removing or inspecting items for evidence.
Johnson’s property damage and seizure of items were not returned; items remain with county clerks or sheriff departments pending Avery’s ongoing case.
Johnson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations; district court granted summary judgment for Manitowoc and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
On appeal, Johnson challenges the reasonableness of the search method, and argues compensation under the Takings Clause; the Seventh Circuit affirms summary judgment for Manitowoc.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of a jackhammer to break concrete under the warrant was reasonable.	Johnson argues jackhammer was excessive.	Manitowoc contends jackhammer reasonable under circumstances.	Yes; jackhammer was reasonable under facts judged at the time.
Whether the Takings Clause requires compensation for damage to Johnson’s property during a search.	Johnson seeks Fifth Amendment compensation for damages.	Takings Clause does not apply when actions are police power, not eminent domain.	No; Takings Clause claim fails because actions were police power.
Whether Johnson stated a viable Fourteenth Amendment unlawful-search or due-process claim against municipal defendants.	Johnson pressed Fourteenth Amendment theories.	Officers’ conduct was reasonable; no Fourteenth violation.	No; federal claims fail; district court’s grant of summary judgment affirmed.

Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) (reasonableness of a search method judged by totality of the circumstances)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness under Fourth Amendment governs mens of search; context matters)
United States v. Jones, 54 F.3d 1285 (7th Cir. 1995) (reasonableness of execution details under warrant—managerial discretion of officers)
Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341 (10th Cir. 1997) (jackhammer use; not necessarily required to be least destructive method; supports reasonableness here)
Becker v. United States, 929 F.2d 442 (9th Cir. 1991) (jackhammer reasonable where used to uncover evidence; contextual reasonableness)
Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (1999) (Fourth Amendment governs; Fourteenth does not apply to these claims)