Opinion ID: 200436
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Search of Residence

Text: 22 The Towers' final Fourth Amendment claim is that the defendants improperly searched the residence after Tower was removed. But a protective sweep is permitted. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334-36, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990) (permitting arresting officers to take reasonable steps to ensure their safety after, and while making [an] arrest). 23 The plaintiffs say that an overly extensive search took place, and cite the appearance of debris from the yard on an upstairs rug and under the stairs, the disappearance of a pair of night vision goggles from Tower's gun cabinet, and an improperly closed night stand drawer. The defendants deny that there was any search other than Peary's sweep to determine that only the Tower family members were present in the home. It is undisputed that Peary took the keys to the gun cabinet from Tower, but it is also undisputed that the missing goggles had not been seen for two months prior to the arrest. The Towers thus have presented no more than a mere scintilla of evidence, which is insufficient to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Torres v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 219 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir.2000).