D.Alaska: Protective sweep after def’s arrest not justified, but there was exigency otherwise

The entry into the house was reasonable because of exigent circumstances because of ongoing drug operations there. Protective sweep is rejected because the defendant had already been arrested by the time the sweep occurred. United States v. Avitia-Enriquez, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79920 (D. Alaska May 1, 2024).

The court struggles with the rationale offered by the government on this protective sweep that it was subjectively inappropriate, but objectively reasonable. One of the officers isn’t found credible, but that doesn’t matter in the final analysis. United States v. Raban, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79797 (D. Colo. May 1, 2024).*

The smell of marijuana from defendant’s car justified extending the stop. United States v. Carson, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79847 (W.D.N.C. May 1, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.