Category Archives: Protective sweep

E.D.Tenn.: A protective sweep wasn’t justified where the officers weren’t legitimately concerned about safety

A protective sweep was not justified in this case. Defendant was being talked to about shooting a shotgun at a racoon, and the other person in the house was conceded at the time to be passive and known to be … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: A protective sweep wasn’t justified where the officers weren’t legitimately concerned about safety

E.D.Wis.: Entry into def’s house two hours after robbery was admittedly not “hot pursuit”

Officers arrived at defendant’s house two hours after defendant, a suspect in a robbery. It wasn’t hot pursuit and they were looking for him to “talk to him,” not arrest him. The entry into the basement was not a protective … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: Entry into def’s house two hours after robbery was admittedly not “hot pursuit”

IL: Pulling along side a pedestrian and telling him to stop and get his hands out of his pockets is governed by Terry

Pulling along side a person walking and telling him to stop and to get his hands out of his pockets is a command not a request and governed by Terry. Here, there was not reasonable suspicion. In re Rafeal E., … Continue reading →

Posted in Border search, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: Pulling along side a pedestrian and telling him to stop and get his hands out of his pockets is governed by Terry

AR: Alternative argument on timing of consent not ruled on below, so it’s defaulted

Consent was found against the defendant, and it’s affirmed on appeal because “the record is devoid of any evidence that appellant was coerced into consenting.” Her alternative argument that the consent was obtained after the search was already started was … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep | Comments Off on AR: Alternative argument on timing of consent not ruled on below, so it’s defaulted

TX6: DUI blood draw without warrant here violated 4A

The taking of defendant’s blood without a warrant violated McNeely. “In light of the United States Supreme Court’s remand of Aviles and in light of the reasoning in Villarreal and Sutherland, we conclude that, in the absence of a warrant … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep, Warrant requirement | Comments Off on TX6: DUI blood draw without warrant here violated 4A

S.D.N.Y.: Cops’ prior false statements in other cases leads court to discredit them on protective sweep

Because of inconsistencies in the officers’ testimony and one with a bad reputation for the truth, the court concludes that a protective sweep on a consent entry here was invalid. This is a case where the government turned over impeaching … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Cops’ prior false statements in other cases leads court to discredit them on protective sweep

LA4: Def consented to entry on knock-and-talk, and circumstances inside supported protective sweep

Officers were aware of defendant’s being involved with drugs, and they came to do a knock-and-talk, and he let them in. Once inside, they could hear other people in the back, a “commotion” with barking dogs, and they could smell … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on LA4: Def consented to entry on knock-and-talk, and circumstances inside supported protective sweep

CA7: Even if this hostage story from victim was fake, a protective sweep was justified

This case started as an apparent hostage situation where a woman text messaged her boyfriend that she was being held hostage in defendant’s house. He called the police and showed the text messages. They tried to figure out what was … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA7: Even if this hostage story from victim was fake, a protective sweep was justified

CA3: Arrest 20′ outside house didn’t permit search of house without more

Defendant was arrested 20′ outside his house, so a search incident of the house was invalid. Viewed as protective sweep of the house, the district court erred in applying Buie’s “prong 2” because there was no finding of necessity. Remanded. … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA3: Arrest 20′ outside house didn’t permit search of house without more

S.D.W.Va.: Court applies Jardines to entry to curtilage on 911 call and finds it reasonable

The officer responding to a 911 call of a shirtless man in dreds swinging a stick in February could enter defendant’s gate to talk to him. Inside the gate, it appeared defendant was seriously high on something and had white … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Emergency / exigency, Protective sweep | Leave a comment