D.Minn.: One person saying another suspect is inside justifies a protective sweep

A protective sweep is based on reasonable suspicion, and a person who came out of the building they were looking for suspects in said that there was another inside. That’s all it takes. The defendant’s arrest outside the apartment didn’t nullify the ability to perform the protective sweep. United States v. Troy, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62299 (D. Minn. April 11, 2013):

Nor does the fact that Defendant Troy was placed under arrest immediately before the protective sweep was performed undermine the ability of the officers to make a protective sweep of the apartment. See Williams, 577 F.3d at 882 (“Although [the defendant] was handcuffed before the search occurred, a valid protective sweep may be conducted within a reasonable period of time after the subject of the warrant has been arrested”); Davis, 471 F.3d at 944 (“A protective sweep may be executed after an arrest if there is a reasonable possibility that other persons may be present on the premises who pose a danger to the officers.”); Burrows, 48 F.3d at 1017 n.9 (explaining that “the particular facts associated with an arrest may necessitate that officers conduct a protective sweep before they can safely depart the premises” and citing numerous cases so holding).

Same: United States v. Burns, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62300 (D. Minn. April 11, 2013)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.