Opinion ID: 172874
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Maryland v. Garrison is the controlling authority to determine the reasonableness of the detention and the subsequent searches.

Text: The Plaintiffs are correct that Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 87, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987), is the controlling authority. Under Garrison, once the Officers were put on notice of the risk that they entered a home that was unconnected to the illegal activity described in the warrant, they had an immediate duty to retreat. See id. Garrison's holding is directed at searches, but in light of related precedent, its analysis applies to detentions as well. In particular, the Supreme Court has held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted. Summers, 452 U.S. at 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587 (emphasis supplied); see also Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, 98, 125 S.Ct. 1465, 161 L.Ed.2d 299 (2005) (observing that [a]n officer's authority to detain incident to a search is categorical; it does not depend on the `quantum of proof justifying detention or the extent of the intrusion to be imposed by the seizure.') (quoting Summers, 452 U.S. at 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587); Pray v. City of Sandusky, 49 F.3d 1154, 1159 (6th Cir. 1995) (applying Garrison to determine what searches and seizures ... took place after the mistake [the officers were in the wrong residence] was known). Thus, under Summers, an officer's authority to detain the occupant of a residence while searching for contraband pursuant to a warrant lasts only as long as the search is proper. 452 U.S. at 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587. [2]