When police executed an arrest warrant at defendant\u2019s house, they found a stolen motorcycle outside. That contributed to the need for a protective sweep of the house. Defendant later consented to a search of the house. United States v. Flowers, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10434 (S.D. Tex. February 5, 2010):<\/p>\n
Significantly, because a stolen motorcycle had been observed outside the house, the officers knew they would be required to remain at the house, both inside and outside, in order to process the stolen vehicle, increasing the risk of an attack from someone inside the house, either an accomplice in Defendant’s criminal activity or a loved one with a misguided desire to protect Defendant from arrest and criminal prosecution. The officers had a reasonable basis to believe that persons inside the house could pose a danger to their safety and, therefore, properly conducted a protective sweep of the house.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Motion to reconsider denial of motion to suppress was denied. Drilling a boat\u2019s panel was not unreasonable when a drug dog alerted. United States v. Amaro-Rodriguez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10438 (D. P.R. February 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n
Officer in a high crime area walking toward the sound of gunshots encountered the defendant, and defendant acted furtively. This justified his patdown. United States v. Calloway, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10752 (W.D. Va. February 8, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading