CURTIS LEE GROVES v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Moylan, December 21, 2018,
Protective Sweep – Police had RAS justifying a protective sweep of a basement after the suspect was taken into custody. Officers heard sounds from the basement, the suspect was reluctant to emerge from there, and he was a confirmed gang member known to carry a firearm.

“The appeal is a primer of Fourth Amendment law because of the plenitude of issues it raises.”
Way to let me down. No plenitude of issues, just Moylan re-reading Buie. Ah well, maybe next time.
Moreover, why are we looking at the RAS rather than determining that this was adjacent to the arrest and therefore required no RAS? Because it’s not a closet? Of what proportion/scope must a room be to no longer qualify as adjacent?

Facts:
The Capital Area Regional Fugitive Task Force went to a location in Hagerstown searching for Groves due to a New York parole violation involving a firearm. The officers had received information that Groves was armed and distributing narcotics in Hagerstown.
Groves’ girlfriend eventually came to the door and confirmed that Groves was there, though she said that she didn’t know if he was upstairs or downstairs. She also confirmed that he was a Bloods gang member and had seen him with a gun about a week ago.
The officers made entry and cleared down to the basement with a bunker package. After calling out, one of the officers kicked a bottle down the stairs to check for a response and heard “fumbling” coming from the basement.
After two minutes, Groves emerged from the basement and was taken into custody.
Officers continued holding the stairway leading to the basement until Groves was secured, then performed a protective sweep of the basement. During the sweep, they noticed what appeared to be a firearm sticking out of a Christmas-tree box, a box of ammunition visible inside of a hole in the wall, and what appeared to be a package of narcotics. All of these items were seen pursuant to a “quick visual scan” involving “just looking behind large items” where a person could hide. No items were moved or opened to make these observations.
The items were not immediately seized. Officers held the location and obtained a search warrant using the observations they had made during the protective sweep.
On execution of the search warrant, a handgun, ammunition, and CDS were recovered. Groves was charged with possession of a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime and CDS PWID.
Groves moved to suppress the evidence, but the trial court allowed it in and Groves was convicted.
Groves appealed, arguing that the search warrant was only obtained because of an unconstitutional search and the evidence should therefore be suppressed.

Held: The protective sweep was legal, and so the evidence supporting the search warrant was properly considered. Evidence not suppressed.

Protective Sweep – A protective sweep is a search for people who may be in the location and pose a risk to safety

Protective Sweep – “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.”

Protective Sweep – Incident to an arrest, officers may look in “closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched” without any further justification needed.

Protective Sweep – A protective sweep beyond the “immediately adjoining area” requires RAS that there may be someone else in the location posing a danger to the officer or others

From the Case: The Court affirmed the trial court’s findings that: “The facts known to the arrest team at the time they conducted the protective sweep support its necessity. The Defendant had an active parole retake warrant, was known to be armed in the past, was known to be a gang member, and had secreted himself in a dark basement, initially refusing to respond or submit. These facts, coupled with the uncertainty of knowing who else may be the house warranted the conduct of the protective sweep by the officers.”

Protective Sweep – A protective sweep may last “no longer than necessary” to show that there is no danger of ambush and “in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises.”

Plain View – What an officer observes during the course of a protective sweep is considered in “plain view” and may be seized and/or used as evidence without additional justification

From the Case: Because the protective sweep was legal, “the cursory observations made in the course of the protective sweep, therefore, were
properly included in the application for the search warrant for 43 Charles Street. The motion to suppress was properly denied.”