In the Supreme Court of the United States In the Supreme Court of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Here, a reasonable person would believe that the Convict and his neighbors nearby were in danger. An armed burglary had just occurred in the Convict’s neighborhood and the witnesses’ description of the burglar matched the description of the person who killed the Convict’s neighbor. R. at 5. Further, the witnesses saw the suspect fleeing through the neighborhood towards the Convict’s house. R. at 5. Unlike the officer in Terry, who had never seen the two suspects before, the Officer possessed matching descriptions of the burglar and murderer. R. at 5. Additionally, much like the experienced officer in Terry, the Officer has been with the police force since at least 2008 and has experience working in this neighborhood. R. at 5. In addition, the Officer believed the threat was dangerous enough that he had to ensure the burglar did not break in or take refuge in the home. R. at 6. While the Convict claimed he had not heard or seen anything out of the ordinary, the Convict may have either been unaware of the burglar’s presence, or may have been harboring the burglar for reasons connected to his known criminal past. R. at 3–5. The Officer, therefore, had reasonable suspicion that the burglar might harm the Convict or his neighbors. 3. The Officer limited the sweep in scope and duration because the Officer looked briefly into an adjoining room and not into a sensitive area of the house. A protective sweep is a “quick and limited search of the premises.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 327. During such a sweep, an officer is permitted to search places within the house that a dangerous person may be hiding. Id. In addition, an officer may search until he “dispel[s] the reasonable suspicion of danger.” Id. at 335. The circuits have broadly interpreted the places where a person may be hiding. See, e.g., Gould, 364 F.3d at 589. For example, in Gould, the Fifth Circuit found that a protective sweep of a bedroom was limited in scope and duration when the officers swept under the bed and inside the closets. Id. at 589, 593 (noting that the sweep was “brief” and “minimally intrusive”). 15
The First Circuit found a protective sweep was reasonable when officers performed a “thirty- second ‘protective sweep’ of several rooms inside the house.” United States v. Daoust, 916 F.2d 757, 758 (1st Cir. 1990). Finally, the Sixth Circuit held a protective sweep was reasonable when police officers swept an entire apartment, including the bathtub, behind the shower curtain, and in a closet. Taylor, 248 F.3d at 510. In these examples, the circuits have all held the protective sweeps to be reasonable, despite the sensitive places the officers swept. Here, the Officer opened the Convict’s kitchen door and briefly looked inside. R. at 6. Compared to looking under a bed, in a closet, or behind a shower curtain, this is a limited sweep. Additionally, the Officer was familiar with the layout of the house. R. at 6. He knew where the kitchen was located and that it had a back door leading outside. R. at 6. While the Convict did not hear anyone enter through the backdoor, the Officer simply wanted to ensure the Convict’s safety and confirm that the burglar was not hiding in the house. R. at 6. The protective sweep, therefore, was limited in both scope and duration. This Court should uphold the Thirteenth Circuit’s ruling. Under Terry and its progeny, carefully limited protective sweeps are reasonable whenever an officer objectively believes a sweep is necessary to protect himself or others. The Officer performed a reasonable protective sweep because he was legally and legitimately on the premises; he reasonably suspected danger because witnesses had seen the burglar fleeing in the direction of the Convict’s home; and he limited the sweep in both scope and duration. 16
Page 1 and 2: No. 13-201 ________________________
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Page Questions
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued iv Page
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued vi P
Page 9 and 10: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued B. F
Page 11 and 12: investigators quickly determined th
Page 13 and 14: Procedural History On October 1, 20
Page 15 and 16: eckless conduct. Other felony offen
Page 17 and 18: The three seminal rulings governing
Page 19 and 20: Amendment intrusion was outweighed
Page 21 and 22: go on unlimited fishing expeditions
Page 23: had waited for a search warrant to
Page 27 and 28: determine whether an offense qualif
Page 29 and 30: eexamined the same issue in light o
Page 31 and 32: F.3d at 7 (commenting that Congress
Page 33 and 34: Subcommittee on Crime of the House
Page 35 and 36: only other listed offenses involvin
Page 37 and 38: The possession of an unregistered s
Page 39 and 40: U.S. Const. amend. IV APPENDIX Rele
Page 41 and 42: (h) to receive or possess a firearm
Page 43 and 44: term applies regardless of whether
Page 45: U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

In the Supreme Court of the United States In the Supreme Court of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?