Opinion ID: 3010883
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Handcuffing of Torres

Text: The first question before us is whether the agents acted lawfully in their treatment of Torres during the execution of the search. If they did, then they were entitled to qualified immunity because the appellees would not have alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all. Lewis, 523 U.S. at 841 n.5, 118 S.Ct. at 1714 n.5. The Supreme Court has held that officers executing a search warrant lawfully may restrain persons present at the searched premises. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 2595 (1981) ([A] warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted.) (footnotes omitted). In Summers, the Supreme Court noted that a warrant to search for narcotics may give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence, and thus the risk of harm to officers and occupants alike is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation. Id. at 702-03, 101 S.Ct. at 2594. The Supreme Court indicated that the officers might exceed their proper authority in an unusual case involving special circumstances, or possibly a prolonged detention, but the routine detention of residents while a search is conducted is constitutional. Id. at 705 n.21, 101 S.Ct. at 2595 n.21. Further, case law has indicated that at least in certain circumstances officers lawfully may handcuff the occupants 8 of the premises while executing a search warrant. In United States v. Fountain, 2 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 1993), officers executing a search warrant for narcotics and firearms handcuffed the occupants of the house and forced them to lie face down on the floor while they conducted the search. Id. at 659-60. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the detention was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment: When occupants of a residence are detained during the execution of a search warrant, the circumstances ordinarily will justify more intrusive behavior by the police than in a typical on-the-street detention. When the ATF agents entered Fountain's home pursuant to the warrant to search for narcotics, they faced a confined, unfamiliar environment that was likely to be dangerous. [The occupants] were handcuffed and forced to lie face down on the living room floor while the search was conducted. Concern for safety of the agents and the need to prevent disposal of any narcotics on the premises, justified the restraint of the occupants, particularly under the circumstances of this case, where the search was part of a narcotics investigation and weapons had been seized from the home just one month earlier. The `character' of the intrusion on [the occupants] and its `justification' were reasonable and proportional to law enforcement's legitimate interests in preventing flight in the event incriminating evidence is found and in minimizing the risk of harm to officers. Those concerns plainly outweighed the intrusion experienced by [the occupants] in being required to be on the living room floor while the search was completed. . . . Id. at 663; see also Van Brackle v. Parole Bd., No. Civ. A. 96-2276, 1996 WL 544229, at  (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 1996) (holding that the detention of an occupant in handcuffs during a search was lawful) (citing Fountain). On the other hand, handcuffing may be excessive in certain circumstances. In Franklin v. Foxworth, 31 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1994), the court held that officers executing a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment when they carried a seriously disabled man from his bed and left him 9 handcuffed on a couch for over two hours with nothing to cover the lower half of his body. Id. at 874-78. Though the man complained that his handcuffs hurt and that he was cold, the officers waited an hour before adjusting the cuffs and giving him a blanket. Id. at 882 (Brunetti, J., concurring). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit labeled the officers' conduct wanton[ ] and callous[ ] and found that this was an example of the unusual case envisioned by Summers. Id. at 876-78. Accordingly, the court reversed a bench trial judgment in favor of the officers. Id. at 874. Moreover, in a concurring opinion, one judge stated that the officers' conduct was so egregious as to preclude any claims of qualified immunity on remand. Id. at 878-80 (Reinhardt, J., concurring). In Baker v. Monroe Township, 50 F.3d 1186 (3d Cir. 1995), we indicated that officers acted excessively when they handcuffed a mother and her teenage children who happened to be approaching a residence for a social visit when the officers arrived to execute a search warrant. See id. at 1192-94. The plaintiffs claimed that the officers left them handcuffed for 25 minutes and pointed guns at them. Id. at 1189, 1192-93. Noting that the use of guns and handcuffs must be justified by the circumstances, id. at 1193, we reversed a summary judgment in favor of an officer, holding that a Fourth Amendment violation could be established if the plaintiffs' allegations regarding their treatment were true. See id. at 1192-94 ([T]he appearances were those of a family paying a social visit . . .[T]here is simply no evidence of anything that should have caused the officers to use the kind of force they are alleged to have used.).5 Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to appellees, we are of the view that the agents' treatment of Torres was _________________________________________________________________ 5. Baker did not present a qualified immunity issue. Rather, the district court had granted summary judgment in favor of an officer on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he had participated in or had knowledge of the treatment the plaintiffs suffered. Baker, 50 F.3d at 1189. We reversed, holding that the plaintiffs' testimony, if true, would support a Fourth Amendment claim against the officer. See id. at 1192-94. 10 lawful.6 The agents left Torres on the floor for only five minutes, and then helped him to the couch, where he still had his towel to cover himself. Moreover, the agents permitted Dominguez and the children to sit with Torres while the search was conducted. The agents directednice comments to the children, and they permitted Dominguez to prepare breakfast for the children. The agents also permitted Dominguez to call her supervisor to say that she would be missing work. The agents loosened Torres's handcuffs after he twice indicated to them that they were too tight. The agents did not point their guns after the initial moments following their entry into the home, and Torres testified that the agents didn't harm any of us. Further, the duration of the search was not excessive under the circumstances, given the size of the home (two stories plus a basement). On these facts, the agents' conduct is far from analogous to the excessive behavior of the officers in Franklin and Baker. As the Supreme Court indicated in Summers, the execution of a narcotics search warrant may give rise to sudden violence or frantic efforts to conceal or destroy evidence, and thus officers are entitled toroutinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation. Summers, 452 U.S. at 702-03, 101 S.Ct. at 2594. The agents had good reason to fear violence or destruction of evidence as they entered the appellees' home because they had cause to believe that the premises was a key location in a large-scale cocaine ring. Further, Torres informed the agents in the initial moments of the search that there were two weapons in the home. Moreover, the agents retrieved firearms, a Glock 9mm semiautomatic and a Ruger .357 magnum, which might be associated with a violent drug operation. The officers also found ammunition for a third type of firearm that they did not locate during their search but which they feared might be present. _________________________________________________________________ 6. We note that determining whether officers have used excessive force is a fact-specific inquiry, taking into account such factors as the severity of the crime, any threat to officer safety, any active resistance, and any injury resulting to the person restrained. See Mellott v. Heemer, 161 F.3d 117, 122 (3d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 2051 (1999). 11 The circumstances confronting the agents were such that they had reason to be concerned for their safety. Accordingly, we conclude that the agents acted lawfully in their treatment of Torres. Therefore, they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to claims regarding that treatment.