can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.” Herring, 555 U.S. at 144,129 S.Ct. 695. Furthermore, the officials in this case, unlike those in Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 104 S.Ct. 3424, 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), did not take “every step that could reasonably be expected of them.” Id. at 989, 104 S.Ct. 3424. When the officials here rang the doorbells that morning at 2424 Cambreleng Avenue, and discovered that Voustianiouk lived on the second floor instead of the first, they could have obtained a warrant to search Voustianiouk’s second-floor home instead of deciding, without any judicial oversight, that the evidence in their possession provided probable cause to do so. Cf. Velardi, 40 F.3d at 576 (<HOLDING>). There is no question that the officers in
holding that the protective sweep incident to the defendants arrest in front of his house on suspicion of murder was not justified because the evidence that an accomplice was involved in the murder did not equate to evidence that someone would be hiding out in the defendants house a month after the crime occurred and at the time of the arrest the officers were not chasing the defendant from a crime scene holding that officers were entitled to qualified immunity when they conducted an entry and emergency sweep of the third house on a particular road even though the warrant specified the fourth house while noting that the warrant specifically mentioned the name of the houses occupant holding that no jury could reasonably fail to find  that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to take the actions they did when the only invasion of privacy that occurred  was entry and an emergency sweep a search of the premises was not conducted until the magistrate informed of what the officers had learned on the scene prior to entry explicitly authorized a search of the third house holding that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises