Court Opinion

ID: 9496886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:38:08.623436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:52.308364
License: Public Domain

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that a protective sweep need not be conducted incident to arrest to be valid under the Fourth Amendment. The constitutionality of such searches must be assessed under a standard of general reasonableness, in consideration of the factors discussed by the majority.
I also agree that the “knock and talk” is usually a legitimate law enforcement tool, and that the officers in this case were *594legally in Gould’s home based on Cabral’s consent.
Under the totality of the circumstances, however, it was unreasonable for the police to enter Gould’s bedroom and search his closets, essentially for the reasons discussed by Judge Smith. It seems to me that if the door to the bedroom had been closed — or even if Gould had been in the room — the search could have been justified by the majority on basically the same grounds (risk of ambush, etc.) it has used to justify the search of an open room in the absence of the subject.
I therefore would affirm the suppression of the evidence.