then would have had to determine “whether ... there was [a] sufficient causal relationship between the breaking of the window and the discovery of the guns to warrant suppression of the evidence.” Id. at 72 n. 3, 118 S.Ct. 992 (emphasis added). Here, the discovery of the guns was not causally related to the manner of executing the search. The police had a warrant, the validity of which is not questioned, and the guns, money, and other contraband were not hidden. Even without the use of a flash-bang device, rubber bullets, or any of the other methods that Defendant challenges, “the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the [evidence] inside the house.” Hudson, 126 S.Ct. at 2164; cf. United States v. Hector, 474 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action holding that more than a year between the protected activity and the discharge is not close enough to support the causal connection requirement holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint holding that suppression was inappropriate where the causal connection between the failure to serve a warrant and the evidence seized is highlyattenuated indeed nonexistent holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury