NY Nassau: Mere theory someone else is inside when it’s not even practical doesn’t support a protective sweep

Police were sent to defendant’s house/dentist office on a report of his menacing with a firearm. Defendant came out and submitted. The entry into the house for exigency or protective sweep was not shown by the state to be justified. The mere theory that someone else could have entered the house in the meantime isn’t enough for a sweep. As to apparent authority to consent, the police did not resolve the ambiguity in whether defendant’s wife when she told them they were separated, and that he threw her stuff out of the house, could consent. She did have authority to enter the garage to take care of a pet. People v. Carey, 2023 NY Slip Op 51419(U), 2023 NYLJ LEXIS 3554, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 23238 (Nassau Co. Dec. 11, 2023).*

Defendant consented to the police entry. They asked if they could all talk inside, and he allowed them in. Contraband was in plain view. State v. Hartfield, 2023-Ohio-4708 (3d Dist. Dec. 26, 2023).*

2255 petitioner already lost on direct appeal on standing on his claim that the U.S. unlawfully obtaining data from a server in the Netherlands under MLAT. That’s law of the case and now can’t be ineffective assistance of counsel.
Loera v. United States, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229234 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Consent, Ineffective assistance, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.