C.D.Ill.: Entry onto def’s curtilage to investigate his weapon possession broadcast live on SnapChat was with RS and reasonable

Officers were regularly monitoring defendant’s SnapChat account and saw him in real time with a gun. He was a convicted felon. “The officers decided to go to the Residence to detain Banks on his porch to investigate whether he had a weapon in his possession.” Their entry onto his curtilage to investigate was with at least reasonable suspicion and was reasonable. United States v. Banks, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203842 (C.D.Ill. Sept. 29, 2021), adopted 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203145 (C.D.Ill. Oct. 21, 2021):

Banks makes much of the fact that he was on his front porch, and so, was within the curtilage of his home. The Seventh Circuit already decided that law enforcement officers may detain a person on his front porch, within the curtilage of his home, to conduct an investigative stop. In United States v. Richmond, 924 F.3d 404, 409 (7th Cir. 2019), officers had reasonable suspicion that Richmond was carrying a weapon. The officers stopped Richmond on the front porch of Richmond’s home and detained him to investigate whether he had a weapon. The officers further opened the screen door of his home to retrieve a weapon that Richmond had placed there just before the officers detained him. Id. The Seventh Circuit specifically held that officers with reasonable suspicion may detain a person and conduct an investigative stop in the curtilage of the home, including on the front porch. Richmond, 924 F.3d at 412-13. The search may include a protective frisk for weapons. Id. at 413-14. Under Richmond, the officers conducted a valid investigative detention of Defendant Banks on his porch.

Banks relies on cases discussing warrantless searches and arrests to support his position. The cases do not address investigative stops such as the one that occurred here. The cases do not apply.

Once Banks was properly detained on the porch, the officers were justified to follow Banks when he tried to flee into the Residence to complete the investigation and to keep Banks from destroying evidence. United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42-43 (1976); Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 460-69 (2011). Once in the home, the officers properly conducted a limited sweep for other weapons for officer safety. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990). The officers did not violate Banks’ rights.