N.D.Ind.: Protective sweep doesn’t require actual knowledge somebody else is inside

The officers conducting a protective sweep do not have to know that there’s somebody else inside. The question is whether it is reasonable on the totality. They can rely on their experience in drug cases, defendant’s priors for drugs, and the fact he previously resisted officers and that associates could be present in concluding officer safety required it. United States v. Sanders, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140328 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 20, 2018):

Deputies Simpson and Anderson also testified that in their experience, drug dealers often have armed associates with them in a house. Nothing in the record contradicts this testimony. These facts are specific and articulable and, taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warranted a protective sweep. The Court finds that the Officers had a reasonable belief that other armed individuals may have been in the residence that could have been dangerous to the Officers or others, and the Defendant’s objection is without merit. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the protective sweeps were lawful.