Opinion ID: 6112882
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The June 2017 Search of Shaulis’s Home

Text: Shaulis claims that after arresting him at home in his kitchen in June 2017, law enforcement officers conducted an overly broad sweep of his house. The arrest warrant, executed by officers from the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, related to Shaulis’s role as a possible supplier of methamphetamine. After arresting Shaulis, the officers conducted a protective sweep of his house, and in searching a furnished room within the basement, they noticed two rifles propped against the wall. With knowledge of these rifles, the officers requested a warrant to search the house to investigate whether Shaulis, who had a previous felony conviction, was violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits felons from possessing firearms and ammunition. A state court granted that warrant request, and in executing the resulting search warrant, the officers found additional firearms and ammunition. The officers seized the two rifles that they observed propped up against a wall in the furnished room during their protective sweep, and while searching the rest of the basement, they found five rifles and three shotguns in a large, unlocked gun safe. Altogether, they recovered 621 rounds of ammunition. The Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement officers, as an incident to arrest, to conduct limited protective sweeps of the premises. Rooms and closets immediately adjacent to the place of arrest may be searched without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. See Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990) (holding that “as an 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 3 arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched”); see also Sharrar v. Felsing, 128 F.3d 810, 823 (3d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2007). A protective sweep may also be conducted in nonadjacent areas upon a reasonable suspicion that other individuals are in those areas and may launch an attack on the officers. See Buie, 494 U.S. at 334; see also United States v. White, 748 F.3d 507, 511 (3d Cir. 2014). Such a sweep is not necessarily “a full search of the premises, but may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 335. Considering the totality of the circumstances, see United States v. Williams, 417 F.3d 373, 376 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Price, 558 F.3d 270, 278 n.6 (3d Cir. 2009), it was reasonable to suspect that a dangerous person was hiding in Shaulis’s basement. At the time of arrest, Shaulis had previously been convicted of a felony for unlawfully possessing a firearm, and he was under investigation for drug trafficking. The remote location of Shaulis’s house, in a rural area at the end of a long driveway, provided an opportunity to notice, and potentially prepare for, the officers’ approach. Upon arriving at the house, the officers noticed that the back door was open, suggesting that someone recently came in or left in a hurry. The officers knew that Shaulis’s wife and son lived in the house, and although they saw his son in the house, they did not see his wife. Also, as they knocked on the back door to announce their presence, the officers heard yelling in the basement and noticed bullets on the floor of the house. After five or six minutes, Shaulis emerged from the basement, and he immediately shut the door behind him. Under these circumstances, the protective sweep of the basement and the 4 furnished room within it, both of which contained guns and ammunition, did not offend the Fourth Amendment.1