Davis

MEMORANDUM **

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Blankenhorn v. City of Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 470 (9th Cir.2007). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

The district court correctly ruled that the officers’ hot pursuit of Michael Thomas justified their entry into the barbershop under the exigent circumstances doctrine. See United States v. Lindsey, 877 F.2d 777, 780-81 (9th Cir.1989). The officers were permitted, out of concern for their safety and that of the occupants, to order the occupants to lie on the floor and then exit the barbershop one at a time. See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702-03 , 101 S.Ct. 2587 , 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981) (“The risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.”).

Reasonable suspicion existed to pat search and detain Spears and Davis because the officers were unable to determine whether Spears and Davis were the suspected armed and dangerous drug dealers Officer Tracy reasonably believed had entered the barbershop only seconds before. United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286, 1289 (9th…