CA10: Protective sweep of car was valid despite presence of six officers; def would get back in car

There was reasonable suspicion enough potential for dangerousness for a protective sweep of defendant’s car. “The district court’s dangerousness analysis relied on four factors: (1) Raban’s gang affiliation, (2) the high-crime and rival-gang neighborhood, (3) Armstrong’s presence, and (4) Raban’s ankle monitor.” The latter gets little weight, and it’s a close call, but they find reasonable suspicion. While there were six officers around, defendant was going to be released back to his car with a citation. That was still enough. United States v. Raban, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33894 (10th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025).

It was objectively reasonable for police to believe that defendant’s wife had apparent authority to consent to entry into and search of a garage she shared. The officer’s use of a flashlight to look in a gap between things wasn’t an unreasonable search. United States v. Serrano, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33904 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2025).*

Defendant was arrested on a warrant that included a reference to an allegedly illegally searched cell phone. Striking that information from the affidavit still leaves probable cause. And his later statement was attenuated from the alleged unlawful arrest. United States v. Williams, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267001 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 29, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Cell phones, Probable cause, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.