*1 telling is, bring the harassment to an end is respectfully I must sub- non-negligent mit, preposterous. in and of itself. might damages question punitive Twenty years! more in view of the
at first seem closer respectfully dissent. required of mind for such culpable state in mind that But one must bear damages. jury the benefit of a enjoyed
Ameriteeh toughened the E.E.O.C.’s
instruction that damages be- proof punitive on
burden of actually requires. the law Over
yond what America, court objection, district E.E.O.C.’s UNITED STATES jury the Commission instructed Plaintiff-Appellee, indiffer- prove must Ameritech’s reckless Tr. convincing ence clear and evidence. Yet, JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
1114-15,1378. preponderance a mere Kip R. necessary all that is of the evidence is No. 99-2527. un- punitive damages support award 1981a(b)(l). § Knowlton der U.S.C. Appeals, Court of United States Phones, Inc., 1177, 1186 Tettrust Seventh Circuit. Stores, Cir.1999); Lucky Stender v. Argued Jan. (N.D.Cal.1992); Inc., F.Supp. Hop- generally Price Waterhouse v. May Decided kins, fact jury found the evi- E.E.O.C.’s compelling enough to meet even this dence just how
heightened burden demonstrates
strong the case was. Commission’s
In the series of Ameritech’s ineffective harassment,
responses to Amos’ one has difficulty detecting a reckless indiffer- company’s female plight
ence company
workers. More than once the if
responded complaint to a about Amos as first, his em- failing
it were the to check history, failing to ratchet
ployment already
discipline from that which and, in previously, Decem- imposed
been 1992, failing to ensure that the time
ber disciplinary in which measures
period imposed permitted
could would not be expire. Considering company what the
knew as of November of it should
have been alert from that high
forward, and all prepared to deal expeditiously about Amos
complaints
efficaciously. dropped After it the ball 1992, it have been all the
December should ready protect
more at the its other so, Even three more com-
employees. fi-
plaints required before Ameriteeh
nally Amos. The fact that terminated twenty years to company nearly
took the *2 device”).
bang A grenade concussion pro- duces a brilliant flash and a loud noise designed to stun and persons disorient nearby, making resistance less A likely. police member of the team found Jones at approximately table 15 to 20 feet from the front door and him “get instructed Instead, down.” Jones stood and was tackled, being struck on right side of the neck in process. Officers then Jones, unarmed, handcuffed who had been search, and conducted their finding mari- cocaine, juana, equipment weighing drugs. No weapon was to be in found apartment, though the officers did locate 26 rounds of ammunition. While the continued, search initiated conver- officers, sation with some who moved him bedroom, administered Miranda warnings, and took a statement which dealing Jones admitted these sought open negotiations about the ex- change of lenience for additional coopera- (argued), Colin S. Bruce Office of the tion. Attorney, Division, Urbana, U.S. Urbana IL, for plaintiff-appellee. Jones does not contend that § officers violated 18 U.S.C. 3109 or the Noll, Ralph (argued), Jon G. E. Williams amendment, fourth Wilson Arkan IL, Springfield, for defendant-appellant. sas, 514 U.S. COFFEY, EASTERBROOK, Before (1995), by L.Ed.2d 976 giving insufficient EVANS, Circuit Judges. using notice before the battering ram. What he does contend is that EASTERBROOK, Judge. Circuit was conducted an unreasonable man Kip pleaded guilty to a cocaine gratuitous ner —that it was use a batter offense, reserving right appeal ram on ing already open, a door to throw the denial of his suppress motion to evi- (es explosive an device into the 11(a)(2). dence. See Fed.R.Crim.P. Po- pecially the police knew that lice entered Jones’s au- girlfriend six-year-old and her thority of a search Jones does warrant. present), child were and to tackle him warrant, dispute not the validity of the but when, perhaps by stunned the explosion, protest he does the manner of its execu- immediately he did not drop floor. tion. The district court held that the officers’ door, pounded loudly An officer conduct respects. was reasonable all shouting “Decatur Police! Search war- We are less certain. Richards Wiscon sin, rant! Open the door!” When the occu- S.Ct. pants (1997), did respond, rejects the officer tried the L.Ed.2d argument door, unlocked, it opened drug found invariably danger dealers are so slightly. A second officer proper; hit the door with ous that no-knock by entries are ram, token, and it flew open. police One of the same cannot automatical houses, the officers looked into living ly drug room throw bombs into dealers’ and, one, in a seeing tossed concussion even if the goes euphemism bomb (which grenade call a “flash- “flash-bang device.” The did not (if were) do not errors errors unusually dan- cers’ was an that Jones believe Williams, Nix v. True, suppression. his criminal rec- lead to drug dealer. gerous (for offense which weapons ord included sen- See also United States a non-custodial had received (7th Cir.1998). in the
tence), are common guns and in Richards as trade, given this was a but similarly statement Jones’s apply to a had little reason well. Police lawful, admissible, custody was for his already door that was battering ram to a after that 30 minutes he does not contend grenade concussion ajar, using by entry he was still so disoriented close to the people a risk that created in was explosion that the statement injured. Chil- would be detonation A that occurs dur voluntary. confession vulnerable, especially dren are or was influenced ing custody, unlawful apart- knew that one was in officers evidence, sup unlawfully seized must be inside the Although they peeked ment. events demon intervening unless pressed room, not to use the device living planning illegality that the did not cause strate child, they if could they saw Elstad, 470 U.S. Oregon confession. in or behind the someone a corner missed (1985); 298, 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. hears the door furniture. A child who Illinois, 590, Brown 422 U.S. 95 S.Ct. likely to hide. being broken down is (1975); Wong Sun v. L.Ed.2d 416 damages seeking a action If this were States, 371 U.S. 83 S.Ct. injury occupants compensation for (1963). was L.Ed.2d 441 Because Jones door, would be a serious or the the claim cases such as Brown do custody, lawful action, so damages not a one. But it is Harris, York v. See New him. not assist not some- would succeed is whether one 495 U.S. to need decide. Jones wants us thing we (1990). inevitable-discovery Given the precludes amendment hold that the fourth doctrine, possession not in police were of the evidence the use any forbidden fruit. If the argument That apartment. in his found decorate door spray paint used Jones’s unrelated to rejected for a reason must heirloom, family graffiti, or stolen strength of the contention have spoiled these unlawful acts would not ex- inappropriately: officers behaved confession, they not have because would on causation: A clusionary depends rule (or person induced an innocent to confess entry, authorized the so seizure warrant likely guilty that a even made it more Murray v. United evidence was inevitable. so). here. person would do Just so States, 536-41, 108 S.Ct. 487 U.S. Only a link between the manner of the (1988). A battering L.Ed.2d 472 entry set and the statement would ram, device, or blow to the neck flash-bang suppression, claim to and Jones does not surprising only by affect the seizure could argument link. try to establish such a His occupants so that stunning discovery drugs that the supposes destroy principal could not evidence. itself unlawful. Jones contends is to grenade pro- function of a concussion very purpose of entry “was for the fire, to un- weapons not tect officers and then to use trying illegal drugs, to find An otherwise concealed. cover evidence leverage finding suspects would have argument idea, in other obtain confession”. [his] they had more destroyed drugs, only if words, person knowing is that a faculties, full of their possession time and him would confess goods had the good suppress probative reason to is not strategy negotiate part Segura v. United evidence crime. See Jones, who initiated the conversa- terms. States, 796, 813-16, confession, culminated in his does tion that No other way other which the work, suggest as in causal chain could be at so Be- manner of led to his statement. inevitable-discovery cases the offi- other custody cause both the seizures and the was transported, surveillance, under lawful, the confession Decatur, is admissible. arrival, Upon Illinois. Baez made a telephone recorded call to Jones AFFIRMED him informed that he was approxi- mately Baez, an hour away. COFFEY, Judge, being dissenting Circuit fitted with an electronic monitoring device part judgment. concurring surveillance, and still under then drove to I am separately forced write Jones’s apartment to make the controlled I am convinced majority’s opinion that the delivery of the cocaine marijuana. unsupported by the law and the facts of When Baez case, arrived at furthermore it have an on December Baez greeted impact ability of law enforcement *4 Warden, by Janice Jones’s girlfriend, personnel protect and themselves when son, six-year-old Marcus, her both of planning entry a safe into a known whom lived with Jones. Warden invited dealer’s residence. Given that this case Baez into the facts, and depends heavily advised him I believe a that, although Jones was present, not thorough more he description of the facts and would return in about 45 minutes. Shortly circumstances is in order. thereafter, Jones arrived at the Delivery Drugs Controlled of the and the two men went to Baez’ car and On December San Bernardino retrieved the drugs from the trunk of the California, County, deputies Sheriffs car and returned to the apartment. stopped the automobile of one Hector Baez Thereafter, the two men engaged for traffic questioning violations. After conversation, brief explained and Jones suspect, the officers suspicious became Baez prepared how he crack cocaine. asked if they Baez could search his vehicle. conversation, During their Baez told Jones search, After Baez consented to the that he had to his get pager from his car. kilogram discovered one of co- comment, pager wire, carried over the caine, kilograms marijuana, 18.47 of two was a prearranged signal po- to alert the clips ammunition, and a nine-millimeter lice that the narcotics transaction had been handgun. completed and leaving that Baez was arrest, After agreed Baez to cooper- apartment. Baez Once left apart- Jones’s ate with police and informed them ment,1 Emergency Response Team that he had obtained the from a (ERT) proceeded according to their Hispanic man in Angeles Los and that he planned execution the search warrant. was en route to deliver them to the defen- The Execution of the Search Warrant2 Decatur, Illinois, dant-Jones in ex- $51,000. change for agreed Baez coop- Immediately apart- Baez left Jones’s erate with law enforcement officers and ment under the pretense getting apartment, 1. After Baez left Jones's weapon. pled F.B.I. unlawful guilty use of a Special Agent Jeffery Illinois, Warren him charge, arrested to the County, and the Cook police detained him ain Decatur trans- year court sentenced him to one of court port police van while Decatur supervision. officers execut- Inspector Ed Root the ERT briefed ed the search warrant. weapons members about Jones’s violation advised the team that this should be taken into Contrary majority's statement planning account in their into "[t]he did not believe that apartment. Jones was an ERT also members testified dealer,” unusually dangerous drug “knowledge directly there is had either ample more than through evidence in the record to possessing others about Mr. Jones fire- might establish that very well have arms’’ on two other occasions “that it was proved very danger to be a real possibility to the lives again." that he could be [armed] safety added). this, anticipa- (emphasis officers. In In addition to tion delivery, just of the controlled purchased large Illinois Police amount narcot- Jones, (almost $51,000. history kilos) ran a criminal check of and it ics It is reason- revealed that Jones had a 1991 arrest for able to willing assume that someone to make member, swung open Officer As the door use of lead ERT
beeper, apart- instrument, pounded on Jones’s Kemp, Kemp Officer looked into David five times with a crowbar- ment door about determining living Upon room. could, tool, as he type yelled loud as no in the present living one there Open Police! Search Warrant! “Decatur room, a “flash-bang” he threw device4 into waited four Kemp then door!” Officer living room aside. stepped Just as seconds, response but heard five detonated, flash-bang the third ERT no re- apartment. After from inside the member, Hastings, rapidly Officer Scott Kemp sponse forthcoming, Officer apartment. entered the doorknob to determine tried Hastings As soon Officer entered the necessary to that would be amount of force “Police, he apartment, began yelling, get was un- punch open. The door the door down, getting get down!” Instead just opened it Kemp locked and Officer down, table, who at the was seated to come light” to allow “sliver of enough “abruptly” stood with his hands at his time, apartment. At this into the note, and, Cody side fails in a Kemp moved aside and Officer Moore, position the door ram.3 where the officer could tell hit *5 securing large expenditure safety preventing will- a would also be officers’ such weapon safeguard to it as well as ing destroying to use a from evidence. Jones particular danger repre- The Jones himself. by the fact that sented is also demonstrated “flash-bang” 4. A is not a "bomb” as ma- initially was en route to deliver when Baez jority improperly it is a labels it. Rather non- necessary Jones he felt it to the narcotics to produces that a gun- lethal device a flash clips handgun two be armed with a 9mm shot-type noise that stuns and disorients for As a result of this informa- of ammunition. eight diversionary about six to This seconds. tion, planned their into ERT members effectively by police depart- tactic ments, used apartment. F.B.I., military and even units to suspects safety. disorient and ensure joins his majority the defendant The McCall, Jr., by Light: Jack H. Blinded "[pjolice that the had little claim and states Legality Law International and the Anti- of apply battering a to a door that reason to ram Weapons, Optic Laser 30 Cornell Int’l L.J. However, already ajar.” battering ram a was unsupported majority, in an con- by frequently law enforcement when used clusion, claims that the use of this device executing a warrant for a dealer's search people "created a risk close to the that deto- (whom reasonably suspect’s they be- or other injured” and nation would be that residence, armed) might may be be lieve If, "[cjhildren especially are vulnerable.” as necessary a situa- for number of reasons in majority hypothesizes, hiding a child was in which an individual refuses to answer tions furniture, piece of the child behind would example, given that this was the door. For vulnerable,” "especially but not be rather large premise stash of search of a where protected bright light be would from the of being certainly possi- narcotics were held it is device. The the child fact that be door ble that the front to such a residence noise, not, exposed potentially to a loud does booby trapped. might be Even without assum- view, my exclusion of warrant the the use trap, possible it is ing any such also that unsupported a device. of such Rather than battering necessary be- use of the ram was majority, the record statements reflects tell, cause the officers could not diversionary that law enforcement threw the open only very slightly, whether door was assuring only into the room after them- device positioned objects or armed individuals were (to humanly possi- selves extent that was possible directly It is also behind door. circumstances) ble under the that no children the door was chained or had some other area; present immediate belief (such as a chair form of additional restraint out to We note that turned be accurate. restraint) propped against the door or metal apparently that law it is ironic enforcement prohibited that would have the officers the child than did the had more concern for gaining entry, exposed a fast and therefore defendant-Jones, placed child who in an dangers, them to unknown whether be narcotics, large quantity with a gunfire. firmly physical assault or I am con- drug paraphernalia, 26 live rounds ammu- vinced that the use of a ram nition, erupt gunfire might only and where at probably safe method to ensure opened quickly possible, both time. the door the police Jones was armed because he conducted their systematic whether According see to the could not his hands. apartment, search of the Jones was escort- testimony suppression hearing, at the Offi- ed into one of the Agent bedrooms with Hastings “couldn’t tell whether cer Root, Warren, Inspector and Master Ser- open were clenched [Jones’s hands] geant Willy Hood. Agent Warren advised In anything in them.” whether Jones rights pres- of Miranda in the fact, “couldn’t Hastings [Jones] officers, ence of the other two and Jones ... until was within a foot or two [he] verbally waived his rights gave oral from him.”5 admitting statement that he had received contrary opinion, Baez, Also the marijuána and cocaine from immediately Jones was not tackled when proceeded to characterize himself as a Rather, up. Hastings he as Officer stood enterprise. middle man the drug Jones, he advanced toward continued went on state that he responsible only him It get holler at down. was only checking the quantity quality comply failed to with the officer’s delivered, and that would he Hastings ran repeated commands willing cooperate with law enforce- around the room table and tackled dining ment in future. Hastings, According “[a]s Jones. to Officer Suppression Hearing him, ground, top we I was on fell entering Before plea conditional any weap- and I that he did not saw guilty, filed a motion to suppress, said, person. actually I [Jones] ons on arguing in which offi- method anything, anything don’t have don’t have know, any You cers weapons.” me. After entered and subdued unarmed, determining that Jones was Offi- him made the execution the search war- Hastings from atop cer removed himself unreasonable, statement, rant that his *6 and body proceeded Jones’s and to handcuff immediately alleged which followed this him seat him in a chair. violation, fourth amendment should there- fore be the of suppressed under “fruit the the ERT
Once officers secured poisonous tree” The district doctrine.6 thorough of conducted search judge, hearing Agent evidence from 1 kilo- apartment. They discovered the Warren, Kemp, Officer Has- gram kilograms of cocaine and the 18.47 of tings, suppress, denied Jones’s motion to marijuana dining room table near a triple-beam agents the stating set of scales. The also fact that “the defendant scales, digital drug para- found electronic charges past’’ in weapons the phernalia, “[tjhe gram and one of crack cocaine. large amount ... [present] of recovered, majority also which the Officers give objective certainly would an state- note, of .22 am- fails to 26 rounds caliber danger ment to a reasonable officer munition from Jones’s bedroom. certainly could the await the officer occupants building upon entry the in Inspectors While Root and Trevor Stal- of added). this type (emphasis search.” search, the conducting ets were several of applicable Based on these facts and the ERT them members informed that Jones easelaw, deny the approxi- proceeded to talk with them. wished After minutes, mately thirty during suppress. time motion to which Jones’s suppression hearing, suppressed executing 5. At the the ERT officers because the officers the provide although dining testified that the search did him with a room is not warrant room, signed required separate living copy room the of the from is search warrant as 41(d). not visible from the front door because of the Fed.R.Crim.P. While the shape configuration living correctly applies exclusionary "L” of the rule .unit. physical resi- evidence seized (i.e.' suppress drugs), there In his motion to filed with the trial dence is no need court, argued physical aban- Jones also address the issue because Jones has argument appeal. evidence seized from his should be doned this 842 of argues that the the context the Fourth Amendment appeal, district
On
denying
sup-
motion to
court
de
erred
is reviewed
novo. United States
Cir.1997).
(4th
the manner
which the
press
1135,
Elie, 111 F.3d
1140
the search warrant was
police executed
determining
The test for
admissibili-
given to
and the statements
unreasonable
ty
through
of evidence
a chain
obtained
time,
direct
police,
at
began
illegal
of
with an
causation that
“
fourth amendment vio-
alleged
result
“whether, granting establish-
arrest
suppressed
therefore be
lation and should
primary illegality,
the evi-
ment
The majori-
tree.
poisonous
fruit of the
objection
which
dence to
instant
is made
in one
ty
question
answer this
attempts to
by exploitation
come at
of that
has been
analysis
detailed
paragraph, without
by means sufficient-
illegality or instead
caselaw,
claiming that
by simply
there
ly
distinguishable
purged
to be
the manner of
is no connection between
”
primary
Wong
taint.’
Sun v. United
subsequent confession.
entry and Jones’s
States,
407,
371 U.S.
83
9
S.Ct.
(not
However,
to men-
Supreme
Court
(1963)
441
(quoting Maguire,
L.Ed.2d
court)
un-
tion this
has mandated
we
(1959)). Thus,
Guilt,
if
Evidence of
analysis.
thorough
a more
dertake
chain
ille-
the causal
between
initial
687,
Alabama,
Taylor v.
457 U.S.
gality
sought
evidence
(1982) (“This
2664,
excessive case, In Kemp pounded this Officer answering allegations, these Instead door approximately five majority wraps a gratuitously gift sec- times with a tool crowbar-type loudly while by stating tion claim this “[i]f announcing “Decatur Police! Search War- damages seeking compensa- were a action rant! Open the Door!” He then waited injury tion or occupants seconds, four to five still there was no door, claim be a would serious one.” response from within nor Then the majority, without detailed did anyone at the door to it. appear open analysis, merely unsupported draws the So, pursuant to instructions from ERT conclusion that there is no connection be- commander, Kemp tried door- (which of entry tween manner knob, discovering the doorknob majority suggests violates fourth turned, opened the slightly, door amendment)7 and the confession. stepped aside. Officer Moore then hit the focusing on Instead of the connection door with a hand-held battering ram and between officers’ and the confes- open. door flew (the majority sion makes little effort to § Under 18.U.S.C. law enforce- distinguish the facts this case from ment is permitted open officer to “break Brown, like Taylor, Dunaway, Wong cases any outer or inner or of a door window Sun, lenco, Patino), I am convinced warrant, if, house ... to execute a search officers, though might that the even authority notice and purpose, implemented oper- same modus he is refused admittance.” The function of were, andi, under the and circum- facts section is to occupant “afford the case, acting legal stances this in a albeit notice he may open so that the door peace- aggressive saying goes, manner. As the ably.” v. Bragg, States you don’t man until have walked a (7th Cir.1998). F.3d Bragg As Connor, mile in his boots. See Graham points out, “[i]f officer ‘is refused ad- mittance’—and answer door (“Not (1989) every push failure is a ... —then door shove, even if it later seem unneces- form of refusal may be broken to execute the warrant.” chambers, sary peace judge’s in the of a added). Id. Amendment.”). (emphasis ... violates the Fourth Consequently, I am of the opinion that The ERT complied with section there is no need to reach attenuation 3109. They clearly pres- announced their question that the addresses. ence by knocking on the door five times Battering The ERT’s Ram Use of shouting while “Decatur Police! Search *8 Open Jones’s Front Door Open They Warrant! the door!” then Jones, provided approximately who was
Initially, argues Jones that the ERT’s door, fifteen ample op- feet from the with execution of warrant the search was unrea- “[tjhere (at portunity according least simply sonable because was no seven seconds court) agents battering basis to use a ram to open for to the district either to every very v. relies on Richards each and case. In a Wiscon- narcotics sin, 385, 1416, holding, Supreme 520 117 S.Ct. 137 narrow States (1997), 615 L.Ed.2d for its claim that it is Court not stated while Wisconsin could rule, (and general "less certain” than the' district court create a such facts of that, presumably myself) particular justified entry. not case a "no-knock” did puzzled undisputed, violate the fourth amendment. I am Given is that the officers by majority’s presence reliance on Richards be- knocked this and announced their case, question single majority's cause it dealt with I find reliance on Rich- legalize inappropriate, unconvincing, the state whether of Wisconsin could ards and inaccu- , “no-knock” entries for search warrants in rate. 844 door, which apartment ram verbally acknowledge open their to
door or to chained, Markling, booby trapped, 7 may v. have been In United States presence. (7th Cir.1993), 1309, blocked, we found people hiding 1318 had F.3d or otherwise was sufficient a of seven seconds that wait physically to positioned behind it who and there was small where the officers, assault, upon, fire with- or was occupant think could was no to reason fourth in the limits of the amendment. police knock announce. not hear the Flash-Bang Device The ERT’s Use a case, made a specific In the trial this execu- argues next that the ERT’s Jones “at a waited least finding that officers was unreason- tion of search warrant clearly [seconds] minimum of seven simply able was no basis “[t]here Here, Markling, apart- more.” ... explosive for fire an device agents reason, was no ment small and there was a six-year-old into an in which music, why playing loud such as a stereo But, again, once present.” child was Kemp hear knock not Jones could facts of case. ignores the this and announce. It note that Jones important is court that there agree with the district a just very large quantity received how much regarding rule bright-line is (almost Baez, 20 kilograms) See, e.g., is United States time reasonable. and, earlier, out it is well known pointed (6th Cir.1998), 913, Spikes, v. 158 F.3d 926 cert, drug dealing is a crime infused 836, denied, 119 525 U.S. S.Ct. See, v. (1999) (“The e.g., United States violence. 142 692 Fourth (7th Cir.1999); Brown, F.3d 865 princi- ‘knock and announce’ Amendment’s nature, Gambrell, given v. 178 F.3d ple, its fact-sensitive cannot United States — cert, (7th denied, U.S.-, stop-watch Cir.), a into constitutional be distilled (1999); of a con- where a fraction second assumes trolling significance.”); United States Stowe, F.3d United States cert, Cir.), F.3d (7th Cir.1996). Beyond the violent nature denied, 1854, 140 trade fact that when and the (1998) (“We will resist L.Ed.2d 1102 present drug this amount of narcotics standard temptation brightline to create a (as likely are be armed dealers cases, i.e., all five or less not for seconds Baez), ERT had been knew that Jones long and more than five seconds enough to, for, pled previously guilty arrested is.”). Thus, courts to estab- have refused testimony, gun According violation. time specific lish frame or set condi- “knowledge ERT also had other members tions before officer use Mr. directly through either others about forcefully enter a ram residence because on other possessing firearms” two depend such determination must was, therefore, It reasonable occasions. Markling, of each case. See particulars might for them to assume 1318; Spikes, 158 F.3d at F.3d at also armed, supported was further belief (“Whether police paused long discovery of of ammuni- 26 rounds enough themselves into a admitting before tion, obviously ammunition that highly home entails ‘a contextual thus displays used for art or decorations. analysis, [requiring] all of] examination these, Under circumstances such as ”) (quoting the circumstances of the case.’ a sound where the basis Bonner, United States *9 armed, I occupant that an believing (D.C.Cir.1989)). I am con- Accordingly, agree judge the trial and believe that with ERT, the of vinced that the under facts flash-bang appropriate the is an use of a case, reasonably this construed Jones’s occupant the that disorienting means of so failure answer door after at least to his they protect can themselves when as an refused admit- implied seven seconds to the enter in order serve tance, 1195, the at Bragg, see 138 F.3d with the au- proceed search warrant and thus Moore’s use of Officer
845 premise. See of within flash-bang search of the Unit- the was the of thorized limits 936, (10th Myers, F.3d 940 the fourth amendment. ed v. States Court, Cir.1997); Langford Superior of ERT’s Use Force to Tackle Jones P.2d CaLRptr. Cal.3d Finally, that argues Jones ERT’s Lonsdale, (1987); see also Mark V. execution of search warrant was unrea- CQB, A Guide to Unarmed Combat and simply “[t]here sonable because was Quarter Shooting; Specialized Tac- Close for agents basis ... to rush to over [him] (“The (1999) Training Unit 111 stun tical in and strike him head and tackle him [flash-bang] may well have grenade saved floor, immediately to the when he did not piece other of any single more lives than lay down floor as commanded.” inventory.”). equipment in SWAT determining In of the reasonableness certainly opinion I am not of While of police executing officers’ use force in in should all nar- that officers force warrant, search we balance the searches, Richards, 520 at cotics U.S. nature quality of the intrusion 393-94, 1416, I 117 S.Ct. do believe that fourth defendant’s amendment interests are with when officers faced an individual against the nature of the threat the defen- involving has a criminal guns, who record posed dant the police. to See Estate of officers have information that the Milwaukee, Phillips City of weapons, with suspect is still involved cert, (7th Cir.1997), denied, just purchased approxi- that individual has 118 S.Ct. 140 L.Ed.2d narcotics, mately kilograms pro- (1998) Connor, (citing Graham in police executing cedure used search warrant this case was reason- (1989)). am, therefore, opinion I able. that Here, Officer Hastings after entered to majority’s attempt poten- make the apartment, repeatedly yelled he at Jones harm child focal tial to a the case “get to down.” Officer Despite Hastings’s misplaced (maybe even inaccurate be- orders, Jones stood with his abruptly the record does not reflect that cause at Hastings hands his side and Officer child). any places were for a hiding there “couldn’t tell whether [Jones’s hands] were majority’s attempt hypothesize open any- clenched had whether hiding the existence of a about child thing ignores them.” The (whom for all we would have know been obvious fact to comply that failure protected from the effects of flash- Hastings’s with Officer commands com- bang) actually hap- is immaterial to what keep bined with Jones’s failure to above, As pened this case. discussed Hastings sight hands caused inspection conducted a visual fast safety. fear for States v. Cf the room and did not observe children Cir.1985). Denney, 771 F.2d present. It was only concluding that response apparent In threat present no children flash- posed, remembering bang deployed was and the entered previously pled guilty carrying apartment.8 firearm, I opinion am the loaded Because I refuse to hold that officers Hastings the force Officer used restrain necessary, using pre- justified. are barred and arrest Further- more, cautionary measures such as flash- soon the officer determined unarmed, case, bang agree device used in this I he off got that Jones was that, him, trial under the him in a facts cuffed seated chair. case, opinion am of the Accordingly, circumstances this the ERT’s use Offi- present, suspect is 8. We note that if a a flash- cross-fire between officers and the child bang suspect device which disorients a likely erupt. less *10 actually protect because serve child tackling of Jones order to Hastings’s cer safety ESTATE, and the other officers’ Lavonna
ensure his J. STINSON Plaintiff-Appellant, of the fourth amendment. not violative join in a mandate that de- I refuse law officers en- mands that enforcement America, UNITED STATES by outlawing the use of danger their lives Defendant-Appellee. just the tactics used in this case No. 99-3333. court would do some-
two members of hind- thing different with benefit Appeals, United States Court of judges sight. It is often said that have Seventh Circuit. minutes, hours, weeks, and even days, April Argued decision, a but officers months make a split have second to make life or only May Decided entering death decision when the residence determining exactly
of a dealer and person
how who has crimi- to restrain history involving just
nal has weapons,
purchased approximately kilograms
narcotics, fails to follow officer instruc-
tions, keeps his out of sight hands
(whether unintentionally). intentionally
Recognizing dangers police the inherent every day (especially face those
officers arrests) and
dealing with narcotics ever
cognizant that one should man boots,9 you
until in his walked mile opinion
I am of the the officers’ ac-
tions, aggressive,10 within the while
limitations of fourth' Con- amendment.
sequently, there to determine reason
whether Jones’s confession was “connect-
ed” to the manner which him.
entered the and arrested said, join
All being this in the decision
to affirm the motion to denial
suppress. Graham, 9. 156 officers 1998 and officers in See 490 U.S. at ("[T]he question is whether the officers' duty. line died Nation in 'objectively light are actions reasonable' in Post, Brief, Washington Dec. confronting the facts and circumstances (1999 30310974). WL them, regard underlying in without their motivation.") tent or