Protective sweep

Maryland v. Buie (1990) 494 U.S. 325, created the doctrine of the "protective sweep." A protective sweep is a "quick and limited search of premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers and others." (Maryland v. Buie (1990) 494 U.S. 325, 327.) It is a "cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding." (Maryland v. Buie (1990) 494 U.S. 325, 335.)

A protective sweep should be based upon reasonable suspicion. A protective sweep cannot be justified by only "officer safety." (People v. Ormonde (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 282.) (People v. Werner (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1195.) (People v. Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 678.) (People v. Troyer (2011) 51 Cal.App.4th 599, 606–607.)

A protective sweep may be done leading up to a probation search. (People v. Ledesma (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 857.) (People v. Pleasant (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 194.) (People v. Yi Chih Chen (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 952.) However, the Ledesma court said, "We reject the notion that a protective sweep is always justfied prior to a search." (People v. Ledesma (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 857, 864.) Instead, a court must "consider the safety concerns triggered by a search in determining the appropriateness of first conducting a sweep . . . ." (Id. at pp. 864–865.) For example, "the type of criminal conduct underlying the arrest or search is significant in determining if a protective sweep is justified." (Id. at p. 865.) But if "an officer has no information about the presence of dangerous individuals, the courts have consistently refused to permit this lack of information to support a “possibility” of peril justifying a sweep.") (People v. Ledesma (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 857, 866, citing United States v. Chaves (11th Cir. 1999) 169 F.3d 687; United States v. Colbert (6th Cir. 1996) 76 F.3d 773.)

Warrant needed after subsequent re-entry after protective sweep. (People v. Dyke (1990) 2224 Cal.App.3d 648.)