D.Minn.: RS supported a protective sweep even though it turned out that all people there were accounted for

“Given the existence of articulable facts and inferences to support a reasonable belief that an additional person on the scene could pose a danger to them, the protective sweep of the house was constitutional. ‘[T]hough hindsight reveals that the officers had already encountered the only two individuals present in [the defendant’s] residence, the … officers were justified in conducting the protective sweep.’ Alatorre, 863 F.3d at 815.” United States v. Hanuman, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194996 (D. Minn. Nov. 15, 2018).

Disclosure of the CI that provided information that helped get a wiretap is denied. There is no material evidence for trial. United States v. James, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194054 (M.D. La. Nov. 14, 2018).*

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

Comments are closed.