42 USC § 1983; Qualified immunity; Binay v Bettendorf; Fourth Amendment; Search warrant; Probable cause; False statements or omissions in warrant affidavit; Tlapanco v Elges; Sykes v Anderson; Maintaining a drug house; MCL 333.7405(1)(d); Unreasonable seizure during search-warrant execution; Detention of occupant during search; Michigan v Summers; Excessive force; Objective reasonableness; Graham v Connor; Clearly established right; Obvious constitutional violation; District of Columbia v Wesby; Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process; Duplicative claim

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff’s unlawful-search claim and that his Fourteenth Amendment claim failed, but he adequately pled a clearly established Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim against defendant-officer Josephs. Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action after officers executed a search warrant at his residence during an investigation into suspected unlawful marijuana activity. The district court granted defendants qualified immunity and dismissed his claims. On appeal, the court first held that the search warrant was supported by probable cause even after removing the allegedly false statements and adding the alleged omissions. It reasoned the “unchallenged facts suffice to establish probable cause” that plaintiff maintained a dwelling or building used for “keeping or selling controlled substances.” The court next held that plaintiff plausibly alleged an unreasonable seizure based on Josephs repeatedly refusing to let him use his restroom, telling him to urinate outside, and then allowing him back inside shortly afterward. Plaintiff alleged he was compliant, unarmed, handcuffed, and under the supervision of 18 officers, and the court reasoned it was “difficult to see” how a supervised bathroom trip would have jeopardized the search. It further held that the right was clearly established because this was an “obvious” violation tied to “privacy and human decency.” But the court held that plaintiff’s substantive due process claim was duplicative because the same conduct was governed by the Fourth Amendment, not “the more generalized notion of substantive due process.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.