“No certain knowledge” of others present needed for protective sweep

“No certain knowledge” of others present needed for protective sweep. United States v. Thang Dinh Ngo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4711 (S.D. Tex. January 22, 2008)*:

Depending on the circumstances, a protective sweep may be permissible even when law enforcement agents have no certain knowledge that other individuals are in the house. See, e.g., Watson, 273 F.3d 599; United States v. Howard, 106 F.3d 70 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Mendoza-Burciaga, 981 F.2d 192 (5th Cir. 1992). In United States v. Watson, officers arrested a suspect on the front porch of his house. Subsequently, the arresting officer performed a protective sweep of the house to look for dangerous persons. The law enforcement agents were concerned that illegal drugs inside the home would be destroyed if the agents waited to obtain a search warrant. Also, the “officers believed that there was a possibility that [the suspect] might have additional accomplices who were still inside the house and could pose a threat to the officers’ safety.” Watson, 273 F.3d at 603. The arresting officer testified that “he lacked specific reason to believe other individuals were in the house but that the possibility always exists.” Id. at 601. The Fifth Circuit upheld the validity of the protective sweep despite “the factual basis for [the officers’] concerns [being] disputable.” Id. at 603.

Improper release from custody did not require a new warrant to retake the inmate. Jenkins v. Currier, 514 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 2008):

Here, state officials took Appellant into custody in order for him to serve his previously imposed sentences. This action was not improper. His erroneous release from federal custody onto the street did not destroy Oklahoma’s claim to legal custody over him. Because he was subject to an unfinished sentence, Appellant, like a parole violator or an escaped convict, was not entitled to the full protections of the Fourth Amendment. The state authorities evidently had reason to believe that Appellant had not completed serving his state sentences. We hold that this was a sufficient basis for his seizure and that no warrant was necessary to take him into physical custody.

Report of a gun being present was reasonable suspicion for a parole search. Portentoso v. Kern, 532 F. Supp. 2d 920 (N.D. Ohio 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.