Plaintiffs also point to the first definition of any in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind, one or another taken at random . As the district court noted in denying Linderman's Motion for Reconsideration, a directive that the search teams seize only a sampling of gang indicia from each location would have complied with the literal terms of the search warrant and would not have required Linderman to substitute his own discretion for the terms of the warrant itself., Second, even assuming Linderman's construction of any as all, while the search warrant gave Linderman the power to instruct the officers to seize items with Hells Angels indicia, it did not mandate that he order them to seize everything complying with the literal terms of the warrant. at 979 (quoting Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 258, 99 S.Ct. The entire thing was a show for media. He ultimately determined that Steve Tausan, one of the nightclub's bouncers and a member of the San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (SJHA), committed the crime.2 Linderman also suspected other SJHA members and associates of concealing evidence of the murder.3, The District Attorney's Office charged Tausan with the murder of Kevin Sullivan. Linderman was not the deputy district attorney who would try the case and was not in a position to judge whether the trial court would admit into evidence photographs of the objects instead of the objects themselves or whether, in this era of digitally altered images, defense counsel would ridicule a photograph as tainted by police technicians, should the original object not be produced.
Clearly, a reasonable officer would have understood that his actions violated an established right of the plaintiffs. The Fourth Amendment allows officers to use a certain amount of force because they are often forced to make split-second judgments-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving Graham, 490 U.S. at 397, 109 S.Ct. The Listons also produced evidence that the police did all this after the Listons informed the police that they had just purchased the house from Hill, the subject of the warrant; the police saw a For Sale sign in the yard which said the house had Sold; and, the police found the escrow papers for the sale from Hill to the Listons and Mr. Liston's driver's license. A reasonable officer should have known that to create a plan to enter the perimeter of a person's property, knowing all the while about the presence of dogs on the property, without considering a method for subduing the dogs besides killing them, would violate the Fourth Amendment. As the court recognized in Liston, it was not clear the destruction of property by itself violated a constitutional right. Nonetheless, the officers failed to develop a realistic plan for incapacitating the dogs other than shooting them. Accordingly, I dissent from the denial of qualified immunity to Linderman. In sum, in these circumstances, a reasonable officer would have known that the killing of the dogs at the Souza and Viera residences was unlawful. Officer Newman supervised the search of Souza's residence. Officer Nieves shot at the second dog twice, critically wounding it, causing it and the third dog to retreat.9 Although he had already shot the first dog at point blank range, Officer Nieves testified that the dog was apparently trying to get back up [a]nd in an effort to ensure that he wasn't going to attack or be a problem for the team, Officer Nieves fired a fourth shot at the dog's head, killing it. 13.At Lori Viera's deposition, she testified that she wrote in her journal, I had to stand again not far from by [sic] poor dog (Sam). See Miller v. Clark County, 340 F.3d 959, 968 n. 13 (9th Cir.2003). Dave Rice - hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money was wasted on this "raid." The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. v. County of Humboldt, 276 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. Judge Ball issued several search warrants on January 20, 1998. The issue here is whether the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, establishes that Officer Linderman's instructions to seize all evidence covered by the search warrant violated an established constitutional right of the plaintiffs, and whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation Linderman confronted. Thus, we affirm the district court's denial of the SJPOs' motion for qualified immunity. denied, County of Humboldt v. Burton, 537 U.S. 1000, 123 S.Ct. 9.The second dog was later taken by an Animal Control Officer and euthanized due to extensive injury. If they did, he planned to poke them through the fence with his shotgun to try and scare them. It is the function of the independent magistrate to assure that there is probable cause to issue the warrant and that the warrant is drafted narrowly and the things to be seized are described with particularity.