Category Archives: Protective sweep

PA: Firing an assault rifle in your house justifies a protective sweep

After defendant fired an assault rifle in his house, the police were called. A protective sweep to see if anyone was injured was reasonable. Commonwealth v. Coughlin, 2018 PA Super 304, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1221 (Nov. 14, 2018). “‘Probable … Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Probable cause, Protective sweep | Comments Off on PA: Firing an assault rifle in your house justifies a protective sweep

N.D.Ga.: Even though initial entry may have been unlawful, reentry at def’s request to get cell phone to call lawyer was by consent and permitted protective sweep

Defendant was arrested in what was alleged to be an unlawful entry. After he was out, he requested his cell phone so he could call a lawyer. Going back in with him and the protective sweep with it was by … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule, Independent source, Protective sweep | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Even though initial entry may have been unlawful, reentry at def’s request to get cell phone to call lawyer was by consent and permitted protective sweep

IN: Backpack of arrested motorcyclist was subject to SI

Defendant was stopped on a motorcycle and had a backpack. An arrest warrant was found for defendant, and his backpack was subject to a search incident. State v. Crager, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 385 (Oct. 25, 2018). There was no … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Probation / Parole search, Protective sweep, Search incident | Comments Off on IN: Backpack of arrested motorcyclist was subject to SI

N.D.Okla.: Arrest inside the door permitted protective sweep

The arrest of the codefendant inside house permitted a protective sweep. United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166347 (N.D. Okla. Sep. 27, 2018). “These nine ineffective assistance of counsel claims are properly evaluated under the Strickland standard, meaning … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Ineffective assistance, Protective sweep | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: Arrest inside the door permitted protective sweep

S.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep led to plain view of firearm and cell phone

During a protective sweep, a firearm and cell phones were seen, and a search warrant was later issued for the firearm. His cell phone was in plain view and seized when defendant was arrested. The officers came back for the … Continue reading →

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Protective sweep led to plain view of firearm and cell phone

N.D.Ill.: Shots fired 911 call and citizen report led to car; protective sweep of back seat was permissible

Chicago police officers received a man on the street report (treated as anonymous but reliable) that shots were just fired from a particular vehicle. There were also 911 calls about the shots. The vehicle was shortly seen, and that was … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Protective sweep, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on N.D.Ill.: Shots fired 911 call and citizen report led to car; protective sweep of back seat was permissible

M.D.Ala.: The apparent layout and size of house and speed with which a protective sweep was conducted shows it reasonable

The place of arrest at the threshold, the layout of the house as seen from the front door, the size of the house, and the speed with which the protective sweep (one minute and 15-30 seconds) shows that it was … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: The apparent layout and size of house and speed with which a protective sweep was conducted shows it reasonable

W.D.N.C.: Davis GFE applied to GVR after Byrd, as happened in Byrd

Defendant’s case was GVR’d after Byrd. On remand, the court finds that the government’s good faith reliance on prior precedent makes this search valid, and the court notes that the same thing happened to Byrd on remand. United States v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Protective sweep | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Davis GFE applied to GVR after Byrd, as happened in Byrd

N.D.Ind.: Protective sweep doesn’t require actual knowledge somebody else is inside

The officers conducting a protective sweep do not have to know that there’s somebody else inside. The question is whether it is reasonable on the totality. They can rely on their experience in drug cases, defendant’s priors for drugs, and … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Protective sweep doesn’t require actual knowledge somebody else is inside

M.D.Ala.: Unmarked pill bottle with apparent crack in it was in plain view during protective sweep after arrest in house

Officers came in defendant’s house with an arrest warrant for cocaine delivery. During a protective sweep, an unmarked pill bottle was seen and picked up. It was immediately apparent to the officers that the contents was likely crack cocaine and … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Unmarked pill bottle with apparent crack in it was in plain view during protective sweep after arrest in house

S.D.N.Y.: When police come to def’s house with arrest warrant, cotenant’s denial he’s home isn’t binding on officers

Officers had good information where defendant lived, and they came with an arrest warrant. His cotenant denied he was there, which the officers did not have to take at face value. One FBI agent testified that cotenants frequently lie about … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Ineffective assistance, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: When police come to def’s house with arrest warrant, cotenant’s denial he’s home isn’t binding on officers

N.D.Ind.: Protective sweep here was based on officers’ experience and not on any specific facts and was still reasonable

The officers here had no specific information there was anybody else in defendant’s house when they did a protective sweep. Nevertheless, the sweep is reasonable. Officers are also entitled to draw on their experience in determining whether a protective sweep … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Protective sweep here was based on officers’ experience and not on any specific facts and was still reasonable

VA: Gun in plain view left in car was seizable under Long

Defendant fled from a car, and a gun was in plain view in the car. The officer acted reasonably in searching the car to secure the firearm under Michigan v. Long [aside from abandonment of the car] because defendant could … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on VA: Gun in plain view left in car was seizable under Long

AK: Refusal of consent can be used against def if state can show case-specific relevance

Normally, refusal of consent can’t be used against the defendant, but it can if there is case-specific relevance, such as evidence of consciousness of guilt, citing Leavitt v. Arave, 383 F.3d 809, 828 (9th Cir. 2004). Ace v. State, 2018 … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Protective sweep | Comments Off on AK: Refusal of consent can be used against def if state can show case-specific relevance

D.N.M.: Protective sweep valid to look for other pressure cooker bombs; parent has presumptive apparent authority to consent to search of adult child’s room

Defendant was suspected of making a pressure cooker bomb, which was found. (1) A protective sweep was proper to determine whether there were others in the house. (2) The house was owned by defendant’s father, and defendant merely lived there. … Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Protective sweep | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Protective sweep valid to look for other pressure cooker bombs; parent has presumptive apparent authority to consent to search of adult child’s room

Two on protective sweep

On plain error review, the protective sweep was reasonable. The officers had information that a suggested second person could have been in the house, and he or she hadn’t been found or found not to exist. United States v. Ford, … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on Two on protective sweep

M.D.Ala.: Emergency aid exception doesn’t apply to justify entry where victims are accounted for outside

The government didn’t meet its burden of showing the emergency aid exception applied where all the purported victims were accounted for and outside the apartment they wanted to search. The protective sweep doctrine as an alternative doesn’t apply here because … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Emergency aid exception doesn’t apply to justify entry where victims are accounted for outside

GA: Allegedly illegally seized journals the state agreed not to use could be used as prior inconsistent statements when def testified

Defendant’s journals were allegedly illegally seized, and the state agreed not to use them. Defendant testified, and the state sought to put the journals into evidence for impeachment as a prior inconsistent statement. When the trial court allowed it, defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Exclusionary rule, Protective sweep | Comments Off on GA: Allegedly illegally seized journals the state agreed not to use could be used as prior inconsistent statements when def testified

E.D.Ky.: Entry for protective sweep with gun drawn wasn’t per se a “forceful entry”; announcement unnecessary

The officer in this case did not have to knock-and-announce to make a protective sweep after defendant was arrested. The officer testified that he did. Entering with gun drawn doesn’t make it a “forceful entry.” United States v. Israel, 2018 … Continue reading →

Posted in Knock and announce, Protective sweep | Comments Off on E.D.Ky.: Entry for protective sweep with gun drawn wasn’t per se a “forceful entry”; announcement unnecessary

CA11: Protective sweep was justified by an extra car out front and voices from inside

A protective sweep was justified by an extra car out front and voices from inside. United States v. Ratcliff, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5443 (11th Cir. Feb. 28, 2018). Officer “knocked” on defendant’s tent at a campsite to talk to … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA11: Protective sweep was justified by an extra car out front and voices from inside