KY: Guns in house not reason enough for protective sweep after arrest outside

Defendant was arrested outside his mobile home at night. Merely having information of guns inside, noise [it turned out to be a dog] inside, and officer safety doesn’t justify this entry. Officer safety was accomplished by the arrest outside. Many homes have guns, and the state’s rule would make every home with a gun subject to search. Noise from inside is to be expected if there is anybody else there, but it doesn’t mean there’s a threat. Brumley v. Commonwealth, 413 S.W.3d 280 (Ky. 2013):

Therefore, we accept that some prior information existed between the officers concerning the presence of guns at Brumley’s residence. Nevertheless, the mere presence of guns in the home of an arrestee does not automatically rise to the level of reasonable suspicion that would justify a protective sweep. Cf. United States v. Atchley, 474 F.3d 840, 844, 849-50 (6th Cir. 2007) (approving a protective sweep of a motel room after police officers, from outside the motel room, observed a handgun on the bed in addition to believing that defendant’s hostile companions may have re-entered the room).

Further, common sense suggests that an overwhelming amount of law abiding citizens in Kentucky have guns in their homes for lawful purposes. In other words, Brumley’s rights under the Fourth Amendment cannot be diminished simply by exercising his rights under the Second Amendment. Therefore, this knowledge alone does not create “reasonable suspicion” that the officers were in imminent peril.

. . .

Reviewing the evidence as a whole, the Commonwealth has failed to demonstrate that the information obtained by law enforcement officers concerning the presence of guns in the residence, coupled with the noise coming from inside, created a rational inference that the mobile home harbored an individual posing a danger to officers on the scene. All of the published cases cited by the dissent to counter this holding deal with officers who were inside the home prior to the sweep and/or had a host of articulable facts justifying the sweep which are not present in this case.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.