Category Archives: Protective sweep

N.D.Ala.: No REP in DEA’s license plate reader database

“First, Officer Josh Powers did not violate Toombs’ Fourth Amendment rights by accessing license plate reader data from the Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration System Information License (‘DEASIL’). Second, Powers had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when he extended … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventory, Protective sweep, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: No REP in DEA’s license plate reader database

TX: New crime in resisting illegal arrest doesn’t depend on gravity of the new offense

Appellant resisted an illegal patdown and was Tased and charged with obstruction and resisting. A new offense is an intervening circumstance under Brown, and it doesn’t matter whether it is “serious” or not. Massey v. State, 2023 Tex. Crim. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Attenuation, Informant hearsay, Protective sweep | Comments Off on TX: New crime in resisting illegal arrest doesn’t depend on gravity of the new offense

NC: Arrest warrant for def permitted entry into house when he retreated inside; protective sweep valid

Officers had an arrest warrant for defendant for a violent crime, and he was found at home. They saw him outside, and he retreated inside. The SRT showed up too. The entry for the arrest was valid, as was the … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Protective sweep, Reasonableness, Waiver | Comments Off on NC: Arrest warrant for def permitted entry into house when he retreated inside; protective sweep valid

CA6: Entry onto driveway didn’t violate curtilage

Officers’ entry onto plaintiff’s driveway did not violate curtilage. Habich v. Wayne Cty., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8868 (6th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023). No reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of trash cans left at the curb for collection. … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Protective sweep | Comments Off on CA6: Entry onto driveway didn’t violate curtilage

E.D.Mo.: Despite initial deception from officers, cell phone search was by consent

“Even when Sgt. Sublette’s initial deception is considered, the totality of the circumstances amount to voluntary consent by Carron. At the time of the encounter, Carron was a 44-year-old man who appeared to be reasonably intelligent with prior experience in … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Protective sweep, Voluntariness | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Despite initial deception from officers, cell phone search was by consent

E.D.Mo.: Officers don’t have to rely on occupants’ word that others aren’t present to be able to conduct a protective sweep

Officers don’t have to rely on occupants’ word that others aren’t present to be able to conduct a protective sweep. Apparent authority to consent and inevitable discovery also apply. United States v. Lewis, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30938 (E.D. Mo. … Continue reading →

Posted in Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mo.: Officers don’t have to rely on occupants’ word that others aren’t present to be able to conduct a protective sweep

W.D.N.Y.: Using flashlight to look in bag tossed in flight in a house was reasonable on protective sweep

Use of a flashlight in a protective sweep of a black bag tossed by a fleeing suspect in the house was reasonable for safety reasons. Inside, methamphetamine was found. United States v. Adams, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28537 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Using flashlight to look in bag tossed in flight in a house was reasonable on protective sweep

VA: Statute passed one year after search that smell couldn’t be basis didn’t apply retroactively

A statute passed a year after this search that the odor of marijuana was no longer probable cause didn’t apply retroactively here. It says “in violation of this statute,” so that’s prospective only. Loeper v. Commonwealth, 2023 Va. App. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Good faith exception, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on VA: Statute passed one year after search that smell couldn’t be basis didn’t apply retroactively

CA6: Govt completely failed to show nexus or PC thus no GFE

The affidavits supporting the records warrant for defendant’s home did not establish nexus between his alleged drug activity, drug records, and his address. Also, the affidavit did not allege that defendant dealt drugs from the house or that he even … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Nexus, Protective sweep, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA6: Govt completely failed to show nexus or PC thus no GFE

W.D.Okla.: Validity of a stop doesn’t depend on whether a traffic offense actually happened, just whether there is RS it did

“[T]he constitutionality of the stop does not depend on whether the driver did, in fact, commit a traffic violation. The standard is reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. If an officer reasonably thinks he saw a driver commit a traffic infraction, then … Continue reading →

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on W.D.Okla.: Validity of a stop doesn’t depend on whether a traffic offense actually happened, just whether there is RS it did

PA: Attachment to a warrant can provide particularity

The attachment to a warrant can provide particularity. While one ground to suppress was mostly litigated, it was apparent the other ground wasn’t waived or abandoned. Commonwealth v. Young, 2022 PA Super 220 (Dec. 23, 2022).* “Here, the record demonstrates … Continue reading →

Posted in Particularity, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on PA: Attachment to a warrant can provide particularity

D.Mass.: Park ranger’s arrest of def outside park wasn’t 4A violation, even if statute violated

“Ruiz argues that, because Carozzi lacked the statutory authority to arrest him outside the park, the arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore all evidence collected subsequent to his arrest (i.e., the breathalyzer results) must be suppressed. In the … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Protective sweep, Search incident | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Park ranger’s arrest of def outside park wasn’t 4A violation, even if statute violated

E.D.Ark.: “Place of residence” for a parole search of an absconder includes a motel room he’s staying in

The “place of residence” for a parole search of an absconder includes a motel room he’s staying in. He also has no standing to challenge a search of a trash can outside the room. United States v. Nichols, 2022 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Good faith exception, Probation / Parole search, Protective sweep, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Ark.: “Place of residence” for a parole search of an absconder includes a motel room he’s staying in

E.D.Cal.: Govt failed in its burden of proof on justification for protective sweep

The court finds, with the evidence in equipoise, the government didn’t meet its burden of showing the arrest happened inside defendant’s house or outside. This is critical, because the police did a protective sweep and used that to get a … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Protective sweep | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Govt failed in its burden of proof on justification for protective sweep

S.D.W.Va.: Protective sweep under a bed is reasonable

The protective sweep here looking under the bed was reasonable. It’s where people hide. Defendant’s contention the sweep went further isn’t clear. Some things were moved and opened, but a search warrant had been executed between the sweep and her … Continue reading →

Posted in Private search, Protective sweep, Reasonableness | Comments Off on S.D.W.Va.: Protective sweep under a bed is reasonable

E.D.Pa.: Threat to get SW was real and lawful and did not coerce consent

“Mr. Adams contends that the agents coerced him into giving consent involuntarily when they threatened to seize his phone and hold it until they obtained a search warrant. … I disagree. For the reasons stated below, I conclude that Mr. … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Protective sweep, Reasonableness | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Threat to get SW was real and lawful and did not coerce consent

D.S.D.: Time waiting for someone to come to remove car, tow truck or friend, was part of incidents of stop

When the vehicle will be removed because of no licensed person to take control, the time between the calling of the tow truck or a friend or family member to take it away and their arrival is part of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Protective sweep, Staleness | Comments Off on D.S.D.: Time waiting for someone to come to remove car, tow truck or friend, was part of incidents of stop

IL: Police car computer report stopped car had no insurance was presumptively reliable basis for stop

Defendant’s car was licensed in another state, so the state’s window tint law didn’t apply, and that couldn’t be a basis for the stop. However, the car was uninsured per the police computer system. “We further note that Campbell’s reliance … Continue reading →

Posted in Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: Police car computer report stopped car had no insurance was presumptively reliable basis for stop

NV: Protective sweep doesn’t require a prior arrest and state didn’t articulate the RS of potential danger for it

“While we hold that a protective sweep does not require a prior arrest, we conclude that the district court correctly concluded that the search performed here was not a lawful protective sweep because it was not based on articulable facts … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Protective sweep, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on NV: Protective sweep doesn’t require a prior arrest and state didn’t articulate the RS of potential danger for it

D.Idaho: This protective sweep was based on speculation and was unreasonable

Here, the protective sweep claim of the government was factually based on speculation, and was unreasonable. United States v. Iverson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156914 (D. Idaho Aug. 29, 2022). Defendant’s stop for suspieion of criminal activity was reasonable. United … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Prison and jail searches, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Idaho: This protective sweep was based on speculation and was unreasonable