Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether this entry and search were conducted reasonably is a close question. The police had legitimate concerns about their safety in entering and searching the house. Defendant had a substantial criminal record, which included violent crimes; there was reliable evidence that he was armed and aggressive; there were several other people in the house, including a former prison inmate; and certain physical characteristics of the house made it difficult to secure. Officers testified at the suppression hearing that the element of surprise was very important due to those factors and t 1 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). And in Boyd, 374 F.3d at 779, we held that,
holding that it was unreasonable for officers to break down doors that they already knew were open holding that officer safety and other concerns authorize police officers to open car doors during an investigatory seizure holding that it was unreasonable for officers to cut a mailbox off its post jackhammer the sidewalk and break a refrigerator holding that officers order to roll down window or open door creates a temporary seizure holding that a detention was not unreasonable where officers though slowed down were diligent in their investigation