SKIP TO CONTENT
We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.

  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

REGISTER
REGISTER

Protective Sweep of Residence

Sep 1, 2017 — by Charles Gillingham — pdf

The author recently had a conversation with a prosecutor in another jurisdiction about protective sweeps. It was clear from the conversation that the officers in that case had a misunderstanding of the differences between a search incident to arrest in a residence and a protective sweep.  Let’s clear up any confusion.

Search Incident to Arrest In Residence

In Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)-Police entered Buie’s home to serve an arrest warrant for armed robbery. Buie was arrested as he exited his basement. The police did a protective sweep of the basement for officer’s safety. Evidence was found in plain view. The USSC ruled that no warrant was required, and incident to the arrest the officers could, as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be launched. Reasonable suspicion is required to sweep beyond this limited area.

1. Officers can conduct a protective sweep of the immediate area as a search incident to arrest. No reasonable suspicion is necessary.

2. Protective sweeps beyond the limited area of a search incident to arrest is allowed if reasonable suspicion exists to do so.

REQUIREMENTS

1.  Lawful entry-important to identify yourself.

2.  REASONABLE SUSPICION that someone other than the arrestee is in the residence and is either hiding or not able to be located;

3.  Danger to the officers or others on site.

Reasonable Suspicion must be supported by FACTS that leads an officer to believe someone else is located within.  NOT KNOWING whether someone else is inside is not sufficient.

What is Reasonable Suspicion?

Hearing voices inside residence; seeing someone inside residence; receiving warning there is someone in residence; knowing that are multiple occupants at the residence; yelling by detainee to some unknown other; crime committed by multiple suspects, one or more of whom is unaccounted for. 

Danger

Officers must be able to articulate why it is that there is danger necessitating a sweep.  In a lawful entry officers would have identified themselves.  That is sufficient to put someone on notice officers are on scene.  Investigation of dangerous crimes lead to inference of need for protective sweep of residence.  Evasive answers by a suspect; use of a weapon; a missing weapon; all provide grounds to sweep.

Sweep

Brief walk through the residence checking anywhere a suspect might hide and present a threat to officers. Anything found in plain view?-Stop and get a warrant.

 

 

 

 

  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau

  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department

  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda

  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police

  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department

  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC

  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS

  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin

  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department

  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department

  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office

  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator

  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department