held unconstitutional, as long as the unlawfulness [of defendant’s actions] was apparent in light of pre-exist-ing law.” Malik v. Brown, 71 F.3d 724, 727 (9th Cir.1995). Butler cites no case directly demonstrating that the asserted right was clearly established in 2005. She contends that in 2005 it was clearly established that “a seizure becomes unlawful when it is more intrusive than necessary to accomplish the objectives that justified the seizure in the first place.” Be that as it may, the circumstances of Butler’s arrest do not demonstrate that her detention was unconstitutionally intrusive. To the contrary, it was established that Perez could detain Butler during the search of her car and home. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981) (<HOLDING>); see also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408,
holding that agents were allowed to seize and question occupants of business while executing search warrant for illegal aliens 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 a warrant to search for contraband founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted 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