The plain view of firearms occurred under Buie\u2019s first scenario, but not the second because it involved a search for a person and continued thereafter. Still, it\u2019s sustained. United States v. McCary, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91328 (E.D. Okla. Apr. 24, 2026):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\nProtective sweeps are proper in two scenarios. United States v. Bagley, 877 F.3d 1151, 1153 (10th Cir. 2017) (citing Buie, 494 U.S. at 334). The first scenario allows officers to look in “closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.” Id. The second scenario allows an officer to go beyond immediately adjoining areas and to “look elsewhere in the house upon specific, articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that someone dangerous remains in the house.” Id. But if the officer “ha[s] no way of knowing, one way or another,” whether someone else remains in the house, then a subsequent protective sweep to answer that question is improper. Id. at 1156 (citing United States v. Nelson, 868 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 2017)). And, if the protective sweep is ultimately improper, then evidence obtained from that improper sweep must be suppressed. Id.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The plain view of firearms occurred under Buie\u2019s first scenario, but not the second because it involved a search for a person and continued thereafter. Still, it\u2019s sustained. United States v. McCary, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91328 (E.D. Okla. Apr. … Continue reading