M.D.Pa.: Burglary in progress call justified protective sweep

Officers responded to a burglary in progress call and conducted a protective sweep, which was valid and led to a search warrant. United States v. Williams, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6350 (M.D. Pa. January 19, 2012) [Note: The court applies the wrong burden of proof to a warrantless search by citing search warrant cases and conflating the two, but, based on the facts, the outcome would be the same]:

“The proponent of a motion to suppress bears the burden of establishing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.” United States v. Correa, 653 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 132 n.1 (1978); United States v. Stearn, 597 F.3d 540, 551 (3d Cir. 2010)). The applicable standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence standard. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 178 n.14 (1974). Where the search in question was conducted pursuant to a warrant, the reviewing court is to uphold the warrant where there is a “substantial basis” for the finding of probable cause. United States v. Hodge, 246 F.3d 301, 305 (3d Cir. 2001).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.