Officers arrived at defendant\u2019s house two hours after defendant, a suspect in a robbery. It wasn\u2019t hot pursuit and they were looking for him to \u201ctalk to him,\u201d not arrest him. The entry into the basement was not a protective sweep by the officers\u2019 own admission. United States v. Sweeney, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75981 (E.D. Wis. June 4, 2014), R&R 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75984 (E.D. Wis. April 7, 2014):*
\n<\/p>\n
The government cited Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 436-37 (1973), in which the police believed that the suspect’s firearm may be in the trunk of his car, which had been towed to an unsecured private lot. Due to the “concern for the safety of the general public who might be endangered if an intruder removed a revolver from the trunk of the vehicle,” the Court upheld the search. Id. at 447. In the present case, the government presented no evidence that the police had any specific reason to believe the gun would be found in the basement or that their inability to find the gun posed an imminent threat to the safety of anyone.<\/p>\n
In sum, the facts of this case fail to establish any emergency situation requiring the officers to immediately enter and search the basement area. For the reasons stated above and those stated by the magistrate judge, the government has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating exigent circumstances.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officers arrived at defendant\u2019s house two hours after defendant, a suspect in a robbery. It wasn\u2019t hot pursuit and they were looking for him to \u201ctalk to him,\u201d not arrest him. The entry into the basement was not a protective … Continue reading