CA8: Protective sweep justified by multiple factors: maybe guns, movement and maybe others inside

“Assuming without deciding that Thompson has ‘standing’ to challenge the search, the protective sweep was justified.” “There was good reason here for a sweep. First, Thompson was suspected of stealing several guns from a pawn shop in a burglary, committing a robbery, and possessing a handgun during a gunfight. That meant Thompson could have left guns behind in the house for another person to use against officers. Second, after announcing their presence, officers were forced to wait for minutes while the blinds on either side of the door moved and they heard movement (and possible preparation for an attack) inside. Third, officers thought the house belonged to Thompson’s girlfriend, who was not located. And after Richards was asked whether anyone else was still in the house, he was silent at first and then gave the odd, ambiguous answer that there was ‘[n]obody else’ in the home ‘that [he] kn[e]w of.’” United States v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22041 (8th Cir. July 26, 2021).

This entry was posted in Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.