Opinion ID: 2996344
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Use of Flash Bang Devices

Text: The Molinas also object to the officers’ use of flash bang devices in their basement, claiming that such use was unnecessary and resulted in unreasonable damage to their bar cabinets, television speaker, and garage door. However, the Molinas have failed to establish that the officers’ actions were unreasonable. When assessing whether a constitutional violation has occurred, “[t]he Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of ‘objective reasonableness’ under the circumstances.” See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 399 (1989); see also Wallace by Wallace v. Batavia Sch. Dist. 101, 68 F.3d 1010, 1014-15 (7th Cir. 1995) (stating that “all Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiries must [retain] an objective perspective”). Here, the officers had information that Raul had a criminal record that included aggravated assault, was at home, and had access to weapons. Thus, the officers had ample reason to be concerned about their personal safety. Moreover, flash bang devices were not used in the presence of Jackie or the children, who were secured in the living room, and no one was harmed by them. Therefore, while we in no way suggest that use of flash bang devices is appropriate in every case (or even most cases6), we find that their use was reasonable under the circumstances, and the Molinas did not suffer a constitutional violation.7 6 Indeed, we have voiced reservations about the use of these devices in recent cases, although we have not gone so far as to find their use unconstitutional. See United States v. Folks, 236 F.3d 384, 388 (7th Cir. 2001); Jones, 214 F.3d at 837-38. 7 We note in passing that even if we agreed that a constitutional right was violated when the officers used flash bang devices, the right was not clearly established in July 1998 when the search (continued...) 16 No. 02-1995