CA4: Another search, surveillance cameras, likely presence of weapons and other persons justified protective sweep

Another search the day before, surveillance cameras, and the likely presence of weapons and others justified this protective sweep. “The officers knew, for example, they were about to arrest a substantial drug supplier, and he had a known connection to firearms and a network of drug distributors and compatriots. Taken together with the security cameras and the presence of the surprise occupant — as the district court recognized — the circumstances justified a reasonably prudent officer in conducting a protective sweep of the Residence to ensure the safety of himself and others. Notably, the officers had ample probable cause and could readily have secured a search warrant for the Reagan Residence earlier, when they obtained the arrest warrant for Everett. But to deprive the officers of the right to conduct a protective sweep, in the circumstances existing at the Residence on the evening of July 17, 2018, would undermine officer safety. This appellate contention of Everett’s will therefore be rejected.” United States v. Everett, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1497 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024). [If this had been unpublished, it would have been about ¼th as long. In addition, do ubiquitous Ring and Google doorbell cams and the like constitute “surveillance cameras”?]

The officer stopping defendant had reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for various circumstances including a full gas can inside the car that suggested a hidden compartment [without explaining]. United States v. Smart, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1394 (4th Cir. Jan. 22, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.