OH2: Looking under an air mattress for a person was valid in a protective sweep

Officers in hot pursuit chased two men to a house, and the door was locked. They “knocked” and got no answer, retrieved a battering ram, and broke in. A protective sweep of the house revealed plenty of drugs in plain view and 32 baggies of marijuana under an air mattress. The search under the air mattress was reasonable under the protective sweep for a person[!]. As for the subsequent search warrant, everything else seen in plain view supports it, besides the look under air mattress which was valid anyway. State v. Lam, 2015-Ohio-4293, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4201 (2d Dist. Oct. 16, 2015). (This one is hard to accept. A person hiding under an air mattress without it being completely obvious? How small a person? They obviously didn’t want to tell the police they couldn’t look under the air mattress because of officer safety, but how about saying that it was proper to look there for a gun until all people in the house have been accounted for? That one at least is reasonable and doesn’t require factoring in the laugh test. And when the house has fleeing felons in it, what’s wrong with looking there? Courts have approved of looking under chair cushions for weapons. Also keep in mind that courts have said that looking under a mattress of a bed was valid as a protective sweep, too, and I remember reporting them here. But, it’s easier to conceive that a bed would more likely hide a person than an air mattress. But, a lot of the Fourth Amendment isn’t about “line drawing” or “bright line rules” which courts avoid and embrace depending on the outcome they’re looking for.)

On a motion to reconsider denial of a motion to suppress under Rodriguez which was decided after the original suppression hearing, there was plenty of reasonable suspicion for extending the stop. United States v. Santillan, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141222 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2015).*

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

Comments are closed.