The officers here had no specific information there was anybody else in defendant\u2019s house when they did a protective sweep. Nevertheless, the sweep is reasonable. Officers are also entitled to draw on their experience in determining whether a protective sweep is necessary, and, in their experience, others could have been present. Defendant\u2019s involvement in drugs and gangs was enough. United States v. Sanders, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115345 (N.D. Ind. July 11, 2018) (I’m not convinced; getting “no response” when knocking on door happens when the house is empty, after all. So, the officer was coming in no matter what then?):
\n<\/p>\n
Contrary to Sanders’s first argument, the Agents did not need to observe anyone else in the house or be told that anyone else was in the house to justify a protective sweep. See United States v. Thompson, 842 F.3d 1002, 1009 (7th Cir. 2016) (“As the door was opening, Agent Reynolds asked Thompson whether anyone was inside and received no response.”). Law enforcement are permitted to draw on their experience, using common sense to make reasonable inferences based on what they know. United States v. Ruiz, 785 F.3d 1134, 1141 (7th Cir. 2015) (finding that law enforcement may develop reasonable suspicion based on “‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,’ suggest criminal activity” (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22)); United States v. Reed, 443 F.3d 600, 603 (7th Cir. 2006) (“In determining whether suspicious circumstances rise to the level of probable cause, officers are entitled to draw reasonable inferences based on their training and experience.”).<\/p>\n
Here, the Agents were briefed on Sanders’s criminal history prior to executing the warrant for his arrest including, Sanders’s phone calls from prison indicating that he was dealing narcotics; Sanders’s conviction for dealing cocaine; that Sanders resisted law enforcement resulting in an injury to a police officer on March 21, 2017; that Sanders was likely armed; and that Sanders was affiliated with a gang in the area. Further, Deputy Simpson, Deputy Anderson, and TFO Anderson testified that, based on their experience, drug dealers usually have armed associates with them in a house and that special caution was warranted in this situation. These factors, considered in totality, provided the Agents with the reasonable belief that other persons could be in Freeman’s house as to justify the protective sweeps. Henderson, 748 F.3d at 791; Starnes, 741 F.3d at 808.<\/p>\n
Similarly, Sanders’s argument that the sweeps were not necessary because he was arrested at the front door without resisting is unpersuasive. As observed, supra, Sanders and Freeman lack credibility regarding the circumstances of the Agents entering Freeman’s house and apprehending Sanders. Moreover, Sanders’s location in the house and his level of cooperation are not determinative on whether the protective sweeps were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Buie, 494 U.S. at 328 (finding a sweep of the basement reasonable after the suspect had exited the basement and was apprehended); Henderson, 748 F.3d at 792-93 (finding a protective sweep reasonable where the defendant exited the house 10 minutes prior to the sweep).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The officers here had no specific information there was anybody else in defendant\u2019s house when they did a protective sweep. Nevertheless, the sweep is reasonable. Officers are also entitled to draw on their experience in determining whether a protective sweep … Continue reading