Category Archives: Protective sweep

MD: Not IAC for defense counsel to confirm witness testimony before filing motion to suppress; which here didn’t matter

Defendant contended the search of his place was before the warrant issued at 12:01 am March 1st. It was not ineffective assistance for counsel to attempt to talk to witnesses before filing a motion to suppress. Even if the police … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Protective sweep | Comments Off on MD: Not IAC for defense counsel to confirm witness testimony before filing motion to suppress; which here didn’t matter

D.N.J.: Protective sweep of hotel room of armored car robbery suspect was reasonable

“Here, the uncontested facts justify a protective sweep of the hotel room. Detective Holmes testified that at the time of Defendant’s arrest, there was still a suspect in the armored truck robbery at-large whose whereabouts were unknown. … As such, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Probable cause, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Protective sweep of hotel room of armored car robbery suspect was reasonable

N.D.Okla.: Not readily finding def in his motel room justified its protective sweep

The protective sweep of defendant’s motel room was reasonable, and it was also justified by a search waiver. There was a woman in the room who was not the defendant they were looking for. United States v. Banegas, 2021 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Protective sweep, Waiver | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: Not readily finding def in his motel room justified its protective sweep

OH10: Citizen informant’s complaint of def flashing gun from car justifies frisk of person and car

A citizen informant’s complaint defendant flashed a gun was justification for both a patdown and a protective weapons search of his car. State v. Shalash, 2021-Ohio-1034, 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 1043 (10th Dist. Mar. 30, 2021). Calling for a drug … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Protective sweep, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on OH10: Citizen informant’s complaint of def flashing gun from car justifies frisk of person and car

W.D.La.: Govt showed justification for protective sweep of person then car

“The firearms and drugs were found during the protective sweep of the passenger area of the vehicle. The initial stop and pat-down of Defendant were justified under Terry, and the subsequent protective sweep of the car for weapons was a … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Govt showed justification for protective sweep of person then car

CA6: Def doesn’t show arrest was delayed to facilitate better protective sweep

The protective sweep finding defendant’s guns on execution of his arrest warrant was reasonable. Defendant does not show that the officers intentionally delayed his arrest with the purpose of exploiting a protective sweep. United States v. Cammon, 2021 U.S. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA6: Def doesn’t show arrest was delayed to facilitate better protective sweep

E.D.Tenn.: Facebook is not a government actor

Facebook is not a government actor, even if NCMEC is under the Tenth Ciruit’s Ackerman. United States v. Sykes, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9580 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 19, 2021). 46 days from a child pornography download by the government to … Continue reading

Posted in Private search, Protective sweep, Staleness | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Facebook is not a government actor

KY: Smell of burning marijuana from a house alone is not exigency

The entry here could not be justified as a protective sweep because of a lack of reason to believe the person sought was there. It also can’t be justified by exigency because of the smell of burning marijuana alone. Nothing … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep | Comments Off on KY: Smell of burning marijuana from a house alone is not exigency

CA10: Uncertainty def was alone inside justified protective sweep

The consenter’s uncertainty that defendant was alone in the apartment justified a protective sweep, and ultimately she consented and the evidence supports that conclusion. United States v. Phyfier, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 133 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2021). [Even so, … Continue reading

Posted in Protective sweep, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA10: Uncertainty def was alone inside justified protective sweep

TX3: No “sua sponte duty” in trial court to suppress evidence that the defense didn’t move to suppress

The trial court has no “sua sponte duty” to suppress evidence that the defense didn’t move to suppress. Chila v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 10219 (Tex. App. – Austin Dec. 23, 2020). Police along with USMs entered defendant’s place … Continue reading

Posted in Motion to suppress, Protective sweep, Scope of search | Comments Off on TX3: No “sua sponte duty” in trial court to suppress evidence that the defense didn’t move to suppress

CA8: DV order of protection and def’s seeking his firearms was PC for SW

Defendant was under a DV order of protection and repeatedly attempted to recover firearms from the police department, and that was probable cause for a warrant for his house. United States v. Bachler, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39772 (8th Cir. … Continue reading

Posted in Probable cause, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA8: DV order of protection and def’s seeking his firearms was PC for SW

W.D.La.: Protective sweep for AK-47 was reasonable on knock-and-talk for weapon, denial of entry, and smelling MJ; one officer was to leave for SW

Police properly conducted a protective sweep for an AK-47 after a knock-and-talk did not gain entry. Police had an anonymous source, and defendant was an alleged felon in possession, and they went for a knock-and-talk. Defendant refused to consent, and … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Inevitable discovery, Knock and talk, Protective sweep, Staleness | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Protective sweep for AK-47 was reasonable on knock-and-talk for weapon, denial of entry, and smelling MJ; one officer was to leave for SW

TX7: Def had no standing to challenge the seizure of an aborted fetus’s DNA

Defendant had no standing to challenge the seizure of an aborted fetus’s DNA that connected him to the pregnancy. Sharp v. State, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 9025 (Tex. App. – Amarillo Nov. 17, 2020). Officers had an arrest warrant for … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, DNA, Protective sweep, Standing | Comments Off on TX7: Def had no standing to challenge the seizure of an aborted fetus’s DNA

CA8: If officers “lingered” during protective sweep, nothing else was found as a result

Defendant complained that the officers “lingered” during the protective sweep. Even if they did, nothing else was found as a result. United States v. Crutchfield, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34446 (8th Cir. Nov. 2, 2020). The driver of the car … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Protective sweep, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA8: If officers “lingered” during protective sweep, nothing else was found as a result

NE: Search of passenger’s purse by consent for passenger compartment was based on reasonable belief it was passenger’s

The driver consented to a search of the car defendant was a passenger in. The passenger’s purse was reasonably believed to be the driver’s for consent purposes, even though it was on her side. When it was opened and her … Continue reading

Posted in Apparent authority, Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep, Waiver | Comments Off on NE: Search of passenger’s purse by consent for passenger compartment was based on reasonable belief it was passenger’s

NJ: Protective sweep of house for gun inside was unreasonable where defendant was arrested outside

Protective sweep of house for gun inside was unreasonable where defendant was arrested outside. State v. Radel, 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 222 (Oct. 20, 2020):

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on NJ: Protective sweep of house for gun inside was unreasonable where defendant was arrested outside

CA1: Gunshot from within while waiting for SW justified entry and sweep

Police froze and surrounded defendant’s home while they sought a search warrant. While they were waiting, a gunshot came from within, so they entered in response. The government satisfied inevitable discovery even though this protective sweep ended up in the … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Protective sweep, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA1: Gunshot from within while waiting for SW justified entry and sweep

E.D.N.C.: Removing protective sweep from affidavit for SW still leaves PC

While protective sweep was unreasonable, excising it from the affidavit for search warrant, still leaves probable cause. United States v. Lee, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171270 (E.D. N.C. Sept. 18, 2020). “In sum, counsel reasonably could have concluded that movant … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Protective sweep, Uncategorized | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: Removing protective sweep from affidavit for SW still leaves PC

CA11: Plain view supported SW; protective sweep essentially moot

Defendant’s arrest in a motel room resulted in a plain view of a distinctive sneaker that was probably worn in a robbery. That supported a search warrant. Defendant’s protective sweep argument wasn’t timely raised, but it would lose anyway because … Continue reading

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA11: Plain view supported SW; protective sweep essentially moot

M.D.Pa.: Govt’s justification for protective sweep or exigency based entry were speculative so motion to suppress granted

The government contention a protective sweep or exigent circumstances justified the entry was speculative and lacked foundation. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Lara-Mejia, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156946 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2020). The automobile exception doesn’t apply … Continue reading

Posted in Curtilage, Probable cause, Protective sweep | Comments Off on M.D.Pa.: Govt’s justification for protective sweep or exigency based entry were speculative so motion to suppress granted