E.D.Ky.: Protective sweep during a knock-and-talk for stolen weapons was justified

Officers came in three cars to conduct a knock and talk about stolen firearms. Outside defendant’s house, they conducted a patdown and had consent to search his vehicle. The search of his garage was permissible as a protective sweep because of recently fired shell casings outside the garage and defendant’s ambiguous comment that somebody else might be inside. United States v. Cunnagin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103504 (E.D. Ky. September 13, 2011).*

Officers who entered plaintiffs’ house and took custody of children were not violating clearly established law when they did so, so they get qualified immunity. Loudermilk v. Danner, 449 Fed. Appx. 693 (9th Cir. 2011) (unpublished)*:

… Under this court’s clearly established law, a reasonable police officer would not have known that it was coercive to explain that taking temporary custody of the Loudermilks’ children under Arizona law was a “viable option,” given that (1) the MCSO Officers had reason to believe probable cause existed to take custody of the children under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-821, and (2) the condition of the home was consistent with the anonymous tip which alleged the home construction was incomplete and had exposed wiring dangerous to children. …

If defendant were a passive mere passenger in a car, they officers would not have had reasonable suspicion for him. Here, however, they had furtive movements and that was sufficient. United States v. Rollins, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103331 (M.D. Fla. September 13, 2011).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.