No suppression for flash and burn search
Tuesday’s other opinion from the Ninth Circuit also involved the unusual service offered by the Portland police. However, in U.S. v. Ankeny , the Ninth Circuit refused to suppress, despite a far more outrageous example of the Portland police department crossing a line.
While Mr. Washington, see previous post, was treated with courtesy throughout the time during which he was being unlawfully seized, Ankeny, the defendant here, physically suffered at the hands of a gang of officers executing a valid search warrant. Even though the police stormed the house, essentially performed a no-knock without authorization, causes thousands of dollars in damage, and caused 1st and 2d burns on the defendant, near whom a flash bang device thrown by police exploded, the evidence was no suppressed because a failure to obtain a “no-knock” component to an otherwise valid warrant cannot justify suppression under Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S.Ct. 2159 (2006), and because the arguably unreasonable nature of the search did not actually lead to discovery of the evidence.
Judge Reinhardt dissented, arguing that the suppression was warranted by “the extreme use of excessive force,” which rendered the search unreasonable. Reinhardt felt that facts showed “a lack of professionalism and disdain for the rights of individuals on the part of some law enforcement officers” unlikely to be cured by the threat of a § 1983 action. Reinhardt fears the majority ruling creates a blanket exception to the exclusionary rule whenever the officers have a valid warrant.
Reinhardt’s description of the conduct as unprofessional is an understament. Electric Lawyer notes the facts of the case are truly shocking, with which I agree. Indeed, with the enthusiastic text message of officers gloating over the property damage and the injuries suffered by the defendant, and declaring a “good time had by all,” the Portland police come off sounding like teenagers enthusing over the latest violent video game.
