The initial entry into defendant\u2019s home was justified by hot pursuit, but other officers followed after the detention, and a protective sweep was conducted. Because it was reasonably feared defendant was armed and the gun hadn\u2019t been located, a sweep to find it in the room was reasonable, even though defendant was handcuffed. United States v. Olson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9615 (D.S.D. January 23, 2015):
\n<\/p>\n
Under these circumstances, Detective Butler and Sergeant Bosman did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they entered the home\u2014Deputies Bunt and Markie had legitimate concerns for their safety as they had not located the weapon reportedly in Mr. Olson’s possession, there were multiple persons in the home, and there may have been additional persons unknown to Bunt and Markie in the home at that point. The fact that Mr. Olson had been immobilized and was face-down on the floor in handcuffs is not alone determinative. As in Kaylor, Johnson, and Standridge, supra, the fact that Mr. Olson’s weapon had not been located, the presence of multiple people in the home, and the fact that the remainder of the home aside from the northeast bedroom had not been explored was sufficient justification for a protective sweep. Bunt and Markie were in charge of Mr. Olson; it was reasonable for them to ask other law enforcement officers to enter the home to assist them. Since their presence there was lawful, Detective Butler’s spying of the .22 revolver was within the plain view exception to the warrant requirement as discussed in the next section of this opinion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The initial entry into defendant\u2019s home was justified by hot pursuit, but other officers followed after the detention, and a protective sweep was conducted. Because it was reasonably feared defendant was armed and the gun hadn\u2019t been located, a sweep … Continue reading