Defendant\u2019s arrest with a warrant inside his apartment was valid, and the constitution didn\u2019t required he be pulled outside to arrest. He stepped back when he saw the officers and they came in and arrested him. A limited protective sweep was valid. This was characterized as a \u201cheat of the moment\u201d decision because of his stepping back, and it was reasonable. United States v. Nicholson, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78727 (W.D.N.Y. June 15, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94720 (W.D.N.Y. July 20, 2016)..<\/p>\n
A postal inspector’s first-hand observations along with a detective’s statement that he recognized defendant’s name from other drug-related investigations was reasonable suspicion to detain a package addressed to defendant. United States v. Kent<\/a>, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10756 (4th Cir. June 14, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant\u2019s arrest with a warrant inside his apartment was valid, and the constitution didn\u2019t required he be pulled outside to arrest. He stepped back when he saw the officers and they came in and arrested him. A limited protective sweep … Continue reading