{"id":6561,"date":"2012-03-09T08:04:38","date_gmt":"2012-01-19T06:11:42","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-01-19T06:11:42","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=6561","title":{"rendered":"CO: Randolph<\/em> does not prohibit protective sweep"},"content":{"rendered":"

Police were called to a domestic dispute, and defendant held off the police for a while, finally surrendering. He was taken away, objecting to a search. After he left, his wife consented to a protective sweep for weapons which were found, along with a pipe bomb. Randolph<\/a> condones this search because of the protective sweep. The trial court erred in suppressing. People v. Strimple<\/a>, 2012 CO 1, 267 P.3d 1219 (2012):<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the circumstances of a domestic abuse incident can justify a warrantless search for weapons based upon a request of one co-tenant, despite the objection of one or more other co-tenants. The Randolph<\/a> Court clarified two points applicable to the case now before us. First, a co-tenant’s consent to a search can prevail over a defendant’s refusal to consent when the defendant has left the scene, where there is “no evidence that the police have removed the potentially objecting tenant from the entrance for the sake of avoiding a possible objection.” Id. at 121. Second, a warrantless search for weapons can be justified under the totality of the circumstances involved in a domestic abuse incident:<\/p>\n

[T]his case has no bearing on the capacity of the police to protect domestic victims …. [T]he question whether the police might lawfully enter over objection in order to provide any protection that might be reasonable is easily answered yes …. The undoubted right of the police to enter in order to protect a victim … has nothing to do with the question in this case, whether a search with the consent of one co-tenant is good against another, standing at the door and expressly refusing consent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Id. at 118-19 (citations omitted). Both of these clarifications are applicable in this case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6561","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6561","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6561"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6561\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6561"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6561"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6561"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}