Arrest outside the threshold of the home led to invalid protective sweep of the house. The officers failed to articulate any facts or reason to justify going in the house. United States v. Barsoum, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56218 (M.D. Fla. April 5, 2012):<\/p>\n
Against these standards, the government offers nothing to suggest the Defendant or anyone in the residence (his family) likely posed a danger to the agents, and certainly nothing that a reasonably prudent officer would accept. Instead, the main reason the government seemingly gives is that the agents took the Defendant inside to avoid the rainy morning and to offer him the opportunity to put on some clothes and shoes. Frankly, I find another reason is more obvious. As Agent Zdrojewski admitted, he wanted to secure the Defendant’s consent to search his house. Indeed, he specifically chose that location for the Defendant’s arrest, as opposed to the pharmacy, to increase his odds that he could search the residence.11 Because I find the government has failed to meet its burden under Buie, I find the agents’ entry into the Defendant’s house and their subsequent protective sweep illegal.<\/p>\n
11 I do not suggest that this tactic is illegal; on the contrary, the approach is commonplace. But as Payton<\/a> and Buie<\/a> make clear, an arrest warrant and a search warrant are not synonymous. Without a search warrant, the government must present an exception to the warrant requirement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading