E.D.Tenn.: Protective sweep invalid

Defendant was arrested outside and asked to go inside to get warm. They all sat in the kitchen. There was no reason for one officer to decide to walk through the rest of the house because there was no proffered safety justification. Finding guns in the bedroom was thus illegal. United States v. Gregg, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91892 (E.D. Tenn. June 19, 2014):

These three officers were lawfully in defendant’s kitchen: Defendant was not dressed for the weather, he asked to go inside, and the officers lawfully accompanied him for their own safety. However, their lawful presence in the house did not extend to any part of the house apart from the kitchen. Defendant never asked to go anyplace else in the house, and in fact he did not go anyplace else; he remained in the kitchen the entire time. Any additional penetration into the house by an officer was beyond the area necessary for officer safety since defendant remained in the kitchen. When Graybeal walked through the kitchen and down the hallway, he went some 20 feet beyond the kitchen. That additional penetration was no more lawful than if they had illegally entered the house itself. To be sure, 20 feet is a short distance, but it nevertheless was well outside the kitchen. If an extra 20 feet was permissible, how much would have been too much? For example, could Lieutenant Graybeal have opened the bathroom door and talked to Ms. Baines while she was in there? After she came out of the bathroom, could he have followed her into her bedroom and in there asked her about guns in the house? To repeat, any entry into the house beyond the kitchen area itself was impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.

Neither could Lt. Graybeal’s actions in going down the hall have been justified for safety reasons. Defendant was in the kitchen, in the presence of the two deputies who were there to see that he did not wander through the house and perhaps retrieve the shotgun or another weapon. This is rather analogous to the situation in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) which stated: …

So, if the officer had said “I was concerned there might be other people inside,” would that be enough to justify this as a protective sweep?

This entry was posted in Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.