they used the battering ram, rubber bullets, and flash-bang devices in order to surprise and distract the occupants of the house. Thus, the destruction of property and use of force arguably were necessary to carry out the search safely and effectively. The amage, and particularly the use of two flash-bang devices, one of which seriously injured Defendant, weigh in favor of a conclusion of unreasonableness. See id. (noting that even where the search is within the scope of the warrant, it can be unreasonable because of its “intolerable intensity”). The record is unclear with respect to whether and why it was necessary to shoot out so many windows and break down so many doors. Cf. San Jose Charter of the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, 402 F.3d 962, 974 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Mena v. City of Simi Valley, 226 F.3d 1031,
holding that deadly force was unreasonable where according to the plaintiffs version of facts the decedent possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot him holding that offer of judgment made to fee owner under statutes and rules no longer applicable did not cut off fee owners right to fees because offer did not state it was being made free and clear of the tenants claims and because in any event condemning authority had made substantial changes to the construction plans and design which decreased the scope of the taking thereby reducing the amount awarded to landowner at trial holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot holding that it was unreasonable for officers to break down doors that they already knew were open holding that it was unreasonable for officers to cut a mailbox off its post jackhammer the sidewalk and break a refrigerator