Opinion ID: 202148
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Manner in Which the Warrant Was Executed

Text: 26 Boulanger next argues that the manner in which the police executed the warrant — apart from the fact that they did not knock and announce their presence — was unreasonable because the police used a flash-bang grenade and a battering ram when entering the apartment. The Supreme Court has stated that it is generally left to the discretion of the executing officers to determine the details of how best to proceed with the performance of a search authorized by warrant — subject of course to the general Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Dalia, 441 U.S. at 257, 99 S.Ct. 1682 (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing Boulanger's claim, we must therefore determine whether the agents' actions were `objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them. United States v. Myers, 106 F.3d 936, 940 (10th Cir.1997). Given the facts surrounding the search, we believe that the officers' manner of entry, including the use of the battering ram and flash-bang grenade, was reasonable. 27 Both Boulanger and the government cite cases from various circuits addressing the issue of whether the use of a flash-bang grenade in entering a dwelling is unreasonable. Although the courts in some of the cases cited questioned the use of a flash-bang grenade, 10 in every case cited but one the courts did not suppress the evidence seized during the search. Further, the only case cited by Boulanger where the court did suppress the evidence, United States v. Stewart, 867 F.2d 581 (10th Cir.1989), is readily distinguishable from the instant case. 11 28 Like other courts that have considered the issue, we recognize the dangers associated with the use of flash-bang grenades and battering rams and agree with the Tenth Circuit that we could not countenance the use of such a device as a routine matter. Myers, 106 F.3d at 940. However, we also agree that we must review the agents' actions from the perspective of reasonable agents on the scene who are legitimately concerned with not only doing their job but with their own safety. Id. (internal citation omitted). Here, the agents were confronted with a situation involving a man with a history of violent crimes, who was a suspect in an armed robbery, was suspected of selling drugs out of the residence to be searched, and who likely possessed what an informant who was not an expert described as a fake gun. As we noted above, it was reasonable for the officers to fear for their safety in conducting the search. We think this applies to the use of the flash-bang grenade as well as the decision to conduct a no-knock entry. Further, we note that the police planned the search after determining that there were no children or elderly people in the apartment. On these facts, we cannot conclude that the officers' decisions were unreasonable. See id. (use of a flash-bang grenade reasonable even though there were children in the house due to the fact that the defendant had a history of drug trafficking, a conviction for a firebombing incident, and was suspected of growing marijuana from his residence). 12 We therefore affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.