View Single Post
Old 03-29-2004, 08:34 AM   #1 (permalink)
Yakk
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Search a house without a warrent -- legal?

http://www.theneworleanschannel.com/...83/detail.html

Text of opinion:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...29-CV0.wpd.pdf
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...-30629-cr0.pdf

From what I can tell, this means that if a police is invited into your home, they can do a 'protective sweep' of the home, checking any area where a weapon or a person could be hiding.

The invitation into the home, together wise a 'feeling of danger', was in this case considered sufficient justification to check under the bed and look in closets. Ie, the police simply asked to enter the house, which was sufficient to justify a search of the house.

This is in contrast to the old docterine (from the second PDF).
Quote:
“ Protective Sweep?
The government argues that the seizure of the checkbook was lawful because it was discovered during a protective sweep of the hotel room. A “protective sweep” is a quick and limited search of a premises, incident to an arrest
and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others. It is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding. Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325, 327, 110 S.Ct. 1093, 1094, 108 L.Ed.2d 276 (1990). The instant search
of the hotel room was not made as an incident to an
arrest and, therefore, it does not fit within the
‘protective sweep’ exception to the warrant requirement. Moreover, under the instant circumstances, the seizure of the checkbook from the wastebasket was not within the narrow ambit of a “cursory visual inspection” of a place where a person could be hiding. See Buie , 494 U.S. at 327, 110 S.Ct. at 1094.” Id . at 1035-36 (emphasis in next to last sentence added).
This extends protective sweeps to any situation where the officer percieves danger, even if they put themselves in that danger of their own consent.

So, you gain permission to enter an apartment building from the manager. While you lack permission to enter a room, you knock on the door to an apartment. While you have no warrent, you have heard that drug dealers live within the apartment.

The knocking at the door makes the apartment dangerous, which means you can do a protective sweep of the surrounding area, in any place where a weapon or person can hide.

Am I reading the ruling wrong?
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360