began yelling and did not obey commands to hang up the phone. See Bate-man Narrative Report, Docket No. 136-3, at 2. Again, cases suggest that such a use of force was at least arguably reasonable. See Ingram v. City of Columbus, 185 F.3d 579, 591-92 (6th Cir.1999) (observing that officers may detain innocent occupants with handcuffs during arrest of criminal suspect in a home where the officers feared for their personal safety); cf. Los Angeles County, California v. Rettele, 550 U.S. 609, 614, 127 S.Ct. 1989, 167 L.Ed.2d 974 (2007) (“[O]fficers may take reasonable action to secure the premises and to ensure their own safety” while executing a search warrant, including holding innocent occupants at gunpoint); Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court must apply qualified
holding that it is permissible under the fourth amendment to detain occupants of a residence while executing a search warrant of the residence holding that officers may detain the occupants of a vehicle while executing a search warrant holding that officers may detain the occupants of a house while executing a search warrant 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 a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found