Category Archives: Protective sweep

D.Kan.: Michigan v. Long search of car on RS for a weapon called “protective sweep”

The officers had reasonable suspicion to believe there was a weapon in the car justifying a “protective sweep” of the car under Michigan v. Long. United States v. Alexander, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197653 (D. Kan. Nov. 14, 2019). Defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Probation / Parole search, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Kan.: Michigan v. Long search of car on RS for a weapon called “protective sweep”

CA9: Shaking a fanny pack rather than searching it was reasonable during a stop-and-frisk

Shaking defendant’s fanny pack to see if there was a weapon rather than opening it was reasonable as a part of stop and frisk. United States v. Elenes, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33067 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2019). Officers could … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Knock and talk, Protective sweep, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA9: Shaking a fanny pack rather than searching it was reasonable during a stop-and-frisk

MT: Welfare check of driver gave no indication of DUI, so no RS

The officer approached defendant’s vehicle pursuant to a 911 call to request a welfare check on the driver, but he did not have particularized suspicion to conduct a DUI investigation at the time he was assured defendant was not in … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Probation / Parole search, Protective sweep | Comments Off on MT: Welfare check of driver gave no indication of DUI, so no RS

CA11: RS supported a protective sweep for def after a police foot chase and officers having reason to believe he could have doubled back to the hotel room from where he started

Defendant discovered he was under surveillance at his motel and he fled. Officers came back to his room in 10 minutes, and seeing his car entered his room thinking he had doubled back. He did not abandon his privacy interest … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Abandonment, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA11: RS supported a protective sweep for def after a police foot chase and officers having reason to believe he could have doubled back to the hotel room from where he started

AZ: Protective sweep that produced a bullet casing was unjustified (but harmless)

Defendant has standing to challenge the search of a mobile home he had rented even though he had not fully moved in, and the trial court erred in concluding otherwise. The state’s argument the entry into the mobile home required … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Protective sweep | Comments Off on AZ: Protective sweep that produced a bullet casing was unjustified (but harmless)

E.D.Mich.: Def’s furtive movement justified extending the stop

Defendant’s reaching out of sight during a traffic stop was a furtive movement justifying extending the stop and seeing what he was doing. United States v. Edwards, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185987 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 28, 2019).* The protective sweep … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Def’s furtive movement justified extending the stop

E.D.Pa.: Protective sweep was properly limited and cell phones in plain view could be seized if it was readily apparent they were evidence

The officers’ protective sweep was justified by the facts, and it was constrained to areas large enough to hide a person. In plain view were two cell phones that were properly seized and then later searched with a warrant. United … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Protective sweep was properly limited and cell phones in plain view could be seized if it was readily apparent they were evidence

N.D.Ind.: Arrest outside motel room still permitted protective sweep where there was RS someone else was there

Defendant was arrested outside his motel room, but that did not bar a protective sweep of the motel room where the officers had reason to believe others could be present. Baldwin v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175253 (N.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Arrest outside motel room still permitted protective sweep where there was RS someone else was there

D.N.M.: Apt. number not required since specific location was given

The specific apartment number wasn’t given, but the physical and geographic location was, and that’s sufficient. “This description provided sufficient particularity for officers to locate the unit to be searched. Accordingly, the Court finds that the affidavit’s description of the … Continue reading

Posted in Particularity, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Apt. number not required since specific location was given

W.D.Pa.: 4A doesn’t require closer questioning of one claiming a serious emergency that proved to be false

Officers responded to a 911 call that six shotgun toting men broke into a house. They talked to the caller at the scene. The front door was open. They knocked and announced and entered. Doing a protective sweep of the … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: 4A doesn’t require closer questioning of one claiming a serious emergency that proved to be false

OH2: Road rage: Panicked driver’s pointing out car that pointed gun justified stop under Navarette and Long permitted protective search for weapon

“Based upon the informant’s face-to-face, contemporaneous, and panicked report of a startling event (the waving of a gun in the vehicle directly behind Underwood’s cruiser), we conclude that the informant’s tip was reliable. This reliability allowed Underwood ‘to credit the … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH2: Road rage: Panicked driver’s pointing out car that pointed gun justified stop under Navarette and Long permitted protective search for weapon

CA9: When defendant is being “detained” and not under arrest, search incident doesn’t apply

The inventory of defendant’s vehicle violated LVMPD’s limited inventory policy, and it is found unreasonable. The government’s search incident alternative wasn’t presented to the trial court. Even assuming it was not waived, this was during a “detention” on less than … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep, Search incident | Comments Off on CA9: When defendant is being “detained” and not under arrest, search incident doesn’t apply