Opinion ID: 770457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Conduct During the Search

Text: 48 Next, Plaintiffs assert that the officers violated 42 U.S.C. S 1983 by conducting the search itself in an unreasonable manner, in particular by callously and needlessly ransacking their home and destroying property. We have held that officers executing a search warrant occasionally `must damage property in order to perform their duty.'  Liston, 120 F.3d at 979 (quoting Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 258 (1979)). Therefore, the destruction of property during a search does not necessarily violate the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Becker, 929 F.2d 442, 446 (9th Cir. 1991). Rather, only unnecessarily destructive behavior, beyond that necessary to execute a warrant effectively, violates the Fourth Amendment. Liston, 120 F.3d at 979; see also Becker, 929 F.2d at 446. 49 Here, Iris Mena testified in her deposition that, during the search, the officers unnecessarily broke down two doors that were unlocked. (And the door that was in the garage, it was already open, and they broke it anyways. And another room that is right in front of Ray's room, it was open, too, at that time, and they broke it, too.). In addition, Ms. Mena testified that she saw Officer Allegra kicking a door on the patio that was already open and saying I like to destroy these kind of materials, it's cool. In light of this testimony, Defendants appear to have damaged Plaintiffs' property in a way that was not reasonably necessary to execute [the] search warrant. Becker, 929 F.2d at 446. Because a reasonable officer would have known that such conduct if proved was unlawful, we affirm the district court.