Trending
A Lycoming County Narcotics Enforcement Unit officer and federal agents did not violate the constitutional rights of the occupants of a residence on Memorial Avenue during a warrant service in 2020, a federal judge's court ruling states.
Krista A. Meyer, the lead plaintiff, sued Officer Tyson Havens, Williamsport Bureau of Police officers, FBI agents and U.S. Marshals Service officers after the warrant service at 945 Memorial Ave. in August 2020, according to documents in the U.S. Middle District Court.
In her complaint, Meyer alleged that Havens violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
The complaint stated it happened when Havens entered the residence without knocking and arrested and detained occupants and detained their children in a verbally threatening manner and at gunpoint without any legal justification.
Havens admitted that he was at the house for five minutes during the search of the residence, according to the court document, but evidence showed that he arrived after federal law enforcement agents had entered the house, secured the occupants and the search was underway.
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew W. Brann ruled that a neutral magistrate issued a warrant, saying that was the clearest indication that the officers acted in an objectively reasonable manner.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs offered no evidence to indicate that the warrant was based on a knowingly or recklessly false affidavit or that the Magistrate Judge William Arbuckle failed to serve in a neutral and detached function in issuing the warrant.
Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that Havens violated their Fourth Amendment rights when he damaged and ransacked the residence and took items and have not been returned to them without justification.
Evidence presented does not indicate that Havens had any personal involvement in seizing plaintiffs' property, the court decision stated.
Moreover, the seizure was conducted pursuant to a federal warrant. Finally, Brann ruled the plaintiffs failed to show excessive force, which would have had to have been a force applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, not to maintain or restore discipline. Evidence showed otherwise -- that plaintiffs were in the living room with no handcuffs or physical restraints. Havens did not yell at any occupants of the residents and did not detain the plaintiffs at gunpoint or by any other means, according to the court document.
In conclusion, Brann granted summary judgment in favor of Havens.