W.D.N.C.: Protective sweep permits a plain view, but officers could not open closed containers

The protective sweep of defendant’s hotel room permitted looking at a glass jar and box of ammunition that were out in the open. Looking in a glasses case and a duffle bag, however, cannot be justified by the protective sweep doctrine. United States v. Fore, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167018 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167016 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2015).

Defendant was asked for consent three separate times, and he consented all three. The officers had reasonable suspicion to detain him otherwise, too. Torres v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12640 (Tex. App. – Houston (14th Dist.) Dec. 15, 2015).*

Defendant fails both Franks prongs. Even if the affiant’s statements were false, (1) defendant didn’t show that they were included with knowledge of their falsity, and (2) excising the questioned information still leaves PC. United States v. Lawrence, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167622 (W.D.Pa. Dec. 15, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.