there is no indication in the complaint that the Plaintiffs posed a threat to law enforcement or that the Plaintiffs were resisting arrest or attempting to flee. As to the severity of the crime at issue, the Defendants had a warrant to search the residence for narcotics and narcotics-related materials, but that fact is inconclusive with respect to the duration and the amount of force the Defendants were entitled to use to control the Plaintiffs. Assuming, without now deciding, that the search warrant was valid, the Defendants were not prohibited from applying reasonable force to control the situation during the search. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 704-05, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981). While the complaint does not indicate exactly ho 1465, 161 L.Ed.2d 299 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The Plaintiffs also allege that at the time
holding that the risk posed to third parties by the official use of force is not to be considered in determining whether an official used excessive force as against a particular plaintiff holding that a twohour detention in handcuffs of a person present at an address being searched for weapons related to gang activity was reasonable holding the court has the inherent authority to enter an order of confidentiality holding that determination of whether a detention is too long to be justified as an investigative stop must take into consideration whether the police diligently pursued their investigation during the time it was necessary to detain defendant holding that inherent in the authorization to detain an occupant of the place to be searched is the authority to use reasonable force to effectuate the detention