GA: Unjustified protective sweep suppressed

The “security sweep” of defendant’s dwelling violated the Fourth Amendment. No justification for the entry and no exigent circumstances were shown. Defendant’s alleged consent came after the unlawful entry. Denial of suppression reversed. Thompson v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 434 (Sep. 19, 2023).

The officer’s entering a dwelling and saying “come over here” was not consent. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Roubideaux, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164805 (D.S.D. Aug. 29, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164255 (D.S.D. Sep. 13, 2023).*

“In Defendant’s motion to suppress and requesting a Franks hearing, Defendant argues extensively that Officer Ríos Camacho’s version of events found in the sworn statements of the warrant applications cannot be entirely true because some of the events described by Officer Camacho — such as the presence of a firearm — were not captured by a security camera at the residence during the dates of the surveillance. … However, the evidence regarding the security camera introduced at the Franks hearing did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Officer Ríos Camacho made intentional false statements or omissions or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.” Even removing all that from the affidavit, there still was probable cause. United States v. Román, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165947 (D.P.R. Sep. 18, 2023).*

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

Comments are closed.