D.Mass.: All confederates were accounted for, protective sweep was unreasonable

Officers “had no basis before conducting the ‘security sweep’ to believe that a dangerous confederate of the defendants was hiding inside the premises of 55 Dunstable Road. In fact, they had no basis for believing that anyone at all was inside the house, as all of the targets of the investigation had been accounted for.” The court notes that a “security sweep” would be permitted on reasonable suspicion that a confederate was inside and armed, even on an arrest outside. United States v. Yoeung Eng, 571 F. Supp. 2d 239 (D. Mass. 2008):

6. Buie also permits a safety sweep in circumstances where officers have reason to fear that they are in imminent danger from the occupants of a dwelling even though the arrest (or a detention) occurs just outside the dwelling. United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1397 (9th Cir. 1989) (sweep justified even though defendant was arrested on the steps of his home — “A bullet fired at an arresting officer standing outside a window is as deadly as one that is projected from one room to another.”); see also United States v. Henry, 48 F.3d 1282, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (arrest in apartment hallway); …

7. The officers must have a reasonable basis for believing that a dangerous person is hiding inside the premises; the mere presence of a third party does not justify a safety sweep. See United States v. Paradis, 351 F.3d 21, 29 (1st Cir. 2003) (sweep of a residence unreasonable where officers had no reason to believe that an accomplice was inside); United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 844-845 (11th Cir. 1984) (same); ….

Defense counsel was not ineffective for waiving a consent search issue since it certainly would have failed. Stamper v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58301 (E.D. Tenn. July 18, 2008).*

Similarly, defendant’s claim that defense counsel could have better impeached the officer is unavailing on an IAC claim where nothing was proffered to show that it would have succeeded. Frazier v. United States, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57823 (W.D. Pa. July 29, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.