OH2: Arrest outside apartment doesn’t justify its protective sweep

Defendant was arrested outside his apartment, and a protective sweep of the apartment was unjustified. State v. Boyd, 2013 Ohio 1067, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 950 (2d Dist. March 22, 2013):

[*P29] This Court in Sharpe noted that the “exigent or emergency circumstances exception justifies a warrantless entry in a variety of situations, including when entry into a building is necessary to protect or preserve life, to prevent physical harm to persons or property, or to prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence, or when someone inside poses a danger to the police officer’s safety. ***.” Id., ¶ 48. This Court further noted, however, that “the mere fact that a firearm may be located within a private home is not, by itself, sufficient to create an exigent or emergency circumstance. ***. What must be present is a risk of danger from its use.”

[*P30] As in Sharpe, the firearm herein posed no danger after Boyd’s arrest, “except to the extent that another person might use it. *** The concern that another person might be there was wholly speculative, and presented no emergency requiring police to enter the house without a warrant to find the gun.” Id., ¶ 51. Accordingly, we conclude that there were no exigent or emergency circumstances justifying the officers’ entry into the apartment.

Back to blog

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.