In 1990, the Supreme Court first set forth the “protective sweep” doctrine in Maryland v. Buie,1 which provides that “[t]he Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Since the Buie decision, lower courts have split on how the protective sweep doctrine should be applied outside the context of an in-home arrest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, along with four other courts of appeals, has held that the protective sweep doctrine may apply in limited, non-arrest situations.
This month, we discuss United States v. Hassock,2 in which the Second Circuit addressed the scope of the protective sweep doctrine outside of the arrest context. Specifically, the Hassock decision, written by Senior Circuit Judge Roger J. Miner and joined by Judges Barrington D. Parker and Reena Raggi, declined to extend this doctrine to allow protective sweeps of living quarters after officers gain entry by consent.
Background and History
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
