W.D.Ky.: Protective sweep unjustified on facts; rural area not enough

The protective sweep here wasn’t justified by any current facts justifying it. The government first relied on it being a rural area, but that’s rejected because it would render most of the country a zone where protective sweeps could always occur. Other information about presence of others was months old information. United States v. Rogers, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193192 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 27, 2023).

Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amendment case in 2016 while his state court criminal prosecution was ongoing, and this case was stayed. Once it was concluded, this was reopened. Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim is barred by collateral estoppel because it was litigated to conclusion in the state case. Carter v. Kuspa, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193071 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 27, 2023).

The car defendant was driving was parked with the rear wheels on the sidewalk and the trunk open. It wasn’t on the curtilage and the open trunk provided plain view. United States v. Beasley, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192965 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Curtilage, Plain view, feel, smell, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.