Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Bagley

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

December 18, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN D. BAGLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (D.C. No. 2:14-CR-20103-CM-1)

          Clinton W. Lee, Lansing, Kansas, for Defendant-Appellant.

          James A. Brown, Assistant United States Attorney (Thomas E. Beall, United States Attorney, with him on the briefs), District of Kansas, Topeka, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

          Before BACHARACH, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

          BACHARACH, Circuit Judge.

         This appeal involves a protective sweep of a house incident to the arrest of one of its occupants, Mr. Stephen Bagley. Our precedents limit protective sweeps to the area immediately adjacent to the place of arrest in the absence of specific, articulable information that a dangerous person remains in the house. In this case, law enforcement officials conducted a protective sweep of the entire house without any information suggesting that someone else remained inside.

         The protective sweep yielded items that allowed law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant for the entire house. Executing this warrant, officials found incriminating evidence. Mr. Bagley moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the protective sweep had gone too far. The district court denied the motion. We reverse because the protective sweep was not permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

         I. Law enforcement officials conducted a protective sweep.

         Mr. Bagley is a convicted felon who was named in an arrest warrant for violating the terms of his supervised release. To execute this arrest warrant, Deputy U.S. Marshals obtained a search warrant allowing entry into a house solely to locate and arrest Mr. Bagley. Deputy marshals came to the house to execute the warrant. When they arrived, Mr. Bagley was allegedly in the southeast bedroom. He eventually surrendered and was handcuffed near the front door.

         The deputy marshals then conducted a protective sweep of the entire house. In the southeast bedroom, deputy marshals found two rounds of ammunition and a substance appearing to be marijuana. These finds led the deputy marshals to obtain a second search warrant. Unlike the first search warrant, the second warrant permitted officers to search the entire house for firearms, ammunition, and controlled substances. Executing the second warrant, deputy marshals found a gun.[1] Mr. Bagley unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence of the gun.

         II. The protective sweep went beyond constitutional limits under our precedents.

         To address the ruling on the motion to suppress, we start with the first search warrant. This warrant permitted the officers to search only for Mr. Bagley and to arrest him. Once he surrendered, the officers would ordinarily have lacked any authority to continue searching. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 333 (1990). But the government invokes the exception for protective sweeps. See Fishbein v. City of Glenwood Springs, 469 F.3d 957, 961 (10th Cir. 2006) (stating that "[t]he protective-sweep doctrine" provides "an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement").

         Invoking this exception, the government argues that when the deputy marshals arrested Mr. Bagley, they were permitted to conduct a protective sweep. "A protective sweep is not a full search, but rather a quick, cursory inspection of the premises, permitted when police officers reasonably believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing danger to those on the arrest scene." United States v. Soria, 959 F.2d 855, 857 (10th Cir. 1992). Even if a protective sweep were permissible, however, the deputy marshals went beyond the limits imposed by our precedents.

         A. Maryland v. Buie identifies two situations for a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.