I am a law enforcement officer operating within central Texas. I would like to find more information about "Protective Sweeps."

Example...Officer observes a subject with a felony warrant enter a residence. Same officer has personal knowledge that narcotics are also dealt out of this residence. Officer knocks at door, enters residence to secure felonious subject, and then conducts a "protective sweep" for other confederates in the residence. Upon doing this narcotics are located in plain view.

Can anyone provide me with current case law dealing with protective sweeps? From what I have read it seems that the term 'exigent circumstances' is often used, but never defined as to why it is 'exigent' for officer safety. These cases always seem to end with a suppresion. Thanks!

As far as I know (and I just did some cursory research on it), this is still good law. There must be reasonable suspicion (specific, articulable facts) to believe that someone else is in the area to be swept who poses a danger to the officers during the time they are making an arrest. The sweep can only consist of a cursory inspection of places where people can be found and must be reasonable in duration - no longer than it takes to complete an arrest and leave.

"When conducting an in-home arrest, a police officer may sweep the house only if he possesses an objectively reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that a person in that area poses a danger to that police officer or to other people in the area.
* * *
Applying this standard to the instant case, this Court concludes that the protective sweep in appellant's home was illegal. In the hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer Bellino did not express his belief that any third persons were inside the appellant's home. Nor did Bellino once articulate his belief that a third person inside the home was attempting to jeopardize either his or the public's safety. In fact, Bellino specifically stated that he considered the appellant's driveway a safe place for both him, his fellow officers and the appellant. Since Bellino failed to express a single articulable fact necessitating a protective sweep, we conclude this sweep was illegal."

Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813, 817 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see also William E. Ringel, Searches and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions 10:11("Officers conducting a warrantless protective sweep of a suspect's residence cannot rely solely on generalizations that suspects are usually accompanied by dangerous third parties, and a lack of information as to the existence in a residence of third parties cannot provide an articulable basis upon which to justify a protective sweep.[FN1.30] The mere possibility, without more, that a dangerous person is concealed inside a structure is not enough to justify a protective sweep of the structure.").

So it's a lot like the reasonable justification needed for a pat down of a person detained during a Terry stop. You need to provide some reasonable explanation for why you felt the search was needed. Parisher v. State, No. 03-08-00046-CR, 2009 WL 1563558 at *8(Tex.App. -Austin June 5, 2009, pet. ref'd) (after finding meth making equipment, "Officer Brown had learned that another man was in the house. Upon inquiry, Sandra Parisher first denied anyone else was present, but then recanted and said a 'friend' was there. Officer Brown did not know the identity of the man and did not know if he was armed or dangerous, or whether he might destroy evidence. Officer Brown had a reasonable belief that a protective sweep was necessary for the safety of the officers.").

Reasor's suggestion that the police must actually believe there is a dangerous person present may not be consistent with Buie. See 40 TEXAS PRACTICE sec. 12.21("In essence, the police must 'reasonably suspect' the presence of persons posing a danger to them, but need not have probable cause to believe such individuals present."); William E. Ringel, Searches and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions 10:11 ("there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene." . . ."). The Court of Criminal Appeals may have recognized this in State v. Sheppard, 271 S.W.3d 281, 288 n.21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting with approval a Fifth Circuit case which recognized that the subjective beliefs of an officer are irrelevant to whether protective search is proper).

Thanks for the information. I really appreciate it and will pass it on to others I work with.