Category Archives: Protective sweep

AK: Refusal of consent can be used against def if state can show case-specific relevance

Normally, refusal of consent can’t be used against the defendant, but it can if there is case-specific relevance, such as evidence of consciousness of guilt, citing Leavitt v. Arave, 383 F.3d 809, 828 (9th Cir. 2004). Ace v. State, 2018 … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Protective sweep | Comments Off on AK: Refusal of consent can be used against def if state can show case-specific relevance

D.N.M.: Protective sweep valid to look for other pressure cooker bombs; parent has presumptive apparent authority to consent to search of adult child’s room

Defendant was suspected of making a pressure cooker bomb, which was found. (1) A protective sweep was proper to determine whether there were others in the house. (2) The house was owned by defendant’s father, and defendant merely lived there. … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Protective sweep valid to look for other pressure cooker bombs; parent has presumptive apparent authority to consent to search of adult child’s room

Two on protective sweep

On plain error review, the protective sweep was reasonable. The officers had information that a suggested second person could have been in the house, and he or she hadn’t been found or found not to exist. United States v. Ford, … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on Two on protective sweep

M.D.Ala.: Emergency aid exception doesn’t apply to justify entry where victims are accounted for outside

The government didn’t meet its burden of showing the emergency aid exception applied where all the purported victims were accounted for and outside the apartment they wanted to search. The protective sweep doctrine as an alternative doesn’t apply here because … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Emergency aid exception doesn’t apply to justify entry where victims are accounted for outside

GA: Allegedly illegally seized journals the state agreed not to use could be used as prior inconsistent statements when def testified

Defendant’s journals were allegedly illegally seized, and the state agreed not to use them. Defendant testified, and the state sought to put the journals into evidence for impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement. When the trial court allowed it, defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep | Comments Off on GA: Allegedly illegally seized journals the state agreed not to use could be used as prior inconsistent statements when def testified

E.D.Ky.: Entry for protective sweep with gun drawn wasn’t per se a “forceful entry”; announcement unnecessary

The officer in this case did not have to knock-and-announce to make a protective sweep after defendant was arrested. The officer testified that he did. Entering with gun drawn doesn’t make it a “forceful entry.” United States v. Israel, 2018 … Continue reading

Posted in Knock and announce, Protective sweep | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Entry for protective sweep with gun drawn wasn’t per se a “forceful entry”; announcement unnecessary

CA11: Protective sweep was justified by an extra car out front and voices from inside

A protective sweep was justified by an extra car out front and voices from inside. United States v. Ratcliff, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5443 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2018). Officer “knocked” on defendant’s tent at a campsite to talk to … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA11: Protective sweep was justified by an extra car out front and voices from inside

W.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was unjustified and suppressed

The protective sweep here was unreasonable because the officers had no articulable facts at all that there was potentially anyone inside before entering. United States v. Rucker, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33607 (W.D. N.Y. Mar. 1, 2018). “Mr. Huffman had … Continue reading

Posted in Drug or alcohol testing, Protective sweep | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep was unjustified and suppressed

CA8: The challenge to RS isn’t piece by piece; RS on totality

The police surveilled defendant’s garage where he was alleged to sell meth from his home in the early morning or at night when he was home. The totality of circumstances add up to reasonable suspicion, and defendant’s challenge was to … Continue reading

Posted in Pretext, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA8: The challenge to RS isn’t piece by piece; RS on totality

D.Minn.: A “search and seizure warrant” not only authorized seizure of defendant’s computer but its search

A “search and seizure warrant” not only authorized seizure of defendant’s computer but its search. “Defendant’s argument that the search warrant authorized the seizure—but not the search—of his computer, phone, and computer storage media strains the bounds of logic and … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Protective sweep, Scope of search, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on D.Minn.: A “search and seizure warrant” not only authorized seizure of defendant’s computer but its search

D.N.M.: Govt’s failure to argue validity of scope of protective sweep before USMJ waived it

The government didn’t raise validity of the scope of the full protective sweep before the USMJ and waived it after the R&R. United States v. Salazar, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10212 (D. N.M. Jan. 23, 2018). Defendant’s cell phone search … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Ineffective assistance, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Govt’s failure to argue validity of scope of protective sweep before USMJ waived it

N.D.Ala.: The mere possibility others are on the premises isn’t RS for Buie

To justify a protective sweep, the mere possibility others might be on the premises is not reasonable suspicion under Buie and would essentially cause a protective sweep in every case. United States v. Yarbrough, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2883 (N.D. … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: The mere possibility others are on the premises isn’t RS for Buie