CA3: Arrest 20′ outside house didn’t permit search of house without more

Defendant was arrested 20′ outside his house, so a search incident of the house was invalid. Viewed as protective sweep of the house, the district court erred in applying Buie’s “prong 2” because there was no finding of necessity. Remanded. United States v. White, 748 F.3d 507 (3d Cir. 2014):

The District Court held that the warrantless search of White’s home was permitted under the first prong of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Buie, 494 U.S. at 334. We disagree. White’s arrest did not occur inside the home, but instead took place approximately 20 feet outside of it. As we stated in Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 824 (3d Cir. 1997),”a sweep incident to an arrest occurring just outside the home must be analyzed under the second prong of the Buie analysis.” Accordingly, for reasons we further explain below, we will vacate the District Court’s order.

. . .

Hence, Buie “prong 1” permits a warrantless search of a home “incident to an arrest” occurring in the home, provided that the search is limited to those places “immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.” Buie’s “prong 2” authorizes a warrantless search of a home based on reasonable and articulable suspicion that the areas being searched may “harbor[] an individual” who poses a danger to those present at the scene of the arrest. “[R]easonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence.” Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123, 120 S. Ct. 673, 145 L. Ed. 2d 570 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).