Causey v. the State
334 Ga. App. 170
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Police with an arrest warrant for Jesse Powell went to Michael Van Causey’s home based on a tip Powell might be there; they did not have a search warrant for Causey’s residence.
- Officers at the front door saw Powell on a couch; when they announced themselves he fled through the house toward the back, and a struggle in a bathroom ensued in which an officer (Whitfield) was injured.
- After forcing entry through a side door, officers subdued Powell and handcuffed Causey and a guest on a sofa; emergency medical personnel were called for the injured officer.
- While waiting for the ambulance, Deputy Schwartz conducted a “protective sweep” of the house to ensure no other persons were hiding; during that sweep he saw suspected methamphetamine in plain view on a dresser in Causey’s bedroom.
- Schwartz then read Causey Miranda rights; Causey signed a written consent to search and admitted the drugs were in his bedroom; officers seized the methamphetamine.
- Causey was convicted after a stipulated bench trial; he moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the protective sweep/search was unlawful. The trial court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Causey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of protective sweep beyond area immediately adjoining arrest | Sweep lacked specific, articulable facts to believe other dangerous persons were in the remainder of the house | Fleeing suspect toward back of house, occupants’ criminal histories, and fast-moving situation justified sweep | Reversed: State failed to show articulable facts supporting a sweep beyond immediately adjoining spaces |
| Lawfulness of officers’ initial entry to arrest Powell | (Not contested on appeal) | Officers had exigent circumstances to enter without a search warrant to apprehend Powell | Not before the court on appeal; trial court found entry valid and Causey did not challenge it |
| Admissibility of evidence seized after potentially unlawful sweep | Evidence should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful search | Causey voluntarily consented later, which may purge taint and allow admission | Remanded: trial court must determine voluntariness and whether consent was sufficiently attenuated from any illegality |
| Standard for protective sweeps | Protective sweep requires reasonable, individualized, articulable suspicion of persons posing danger in swept areas | Sweep permissible under Buie when circumstances (fleeing suspect, injuries) justify belief others may be present | Court applied Buie: generalized concerns (reputations, warrants, drug use) insufficient; needed specific facts/inferences |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (protective sweep doctrine; limited cursory search incident to in-home arrest; beyond adjoining spaces requires articulable facts)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (frisk/search requires reasonable, individualized suspicion)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (home searches for third-party arrest warrants require exigent circumstances or search warrant)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (limits on warrantless searches and executing arrest warrants in third-party homes)
- United States v. Hollis, 780 F.3d 1064 (officers may infer presence of others where reliable information indicates multiple occupants/drug-house activity)
- United States v. Chaves, 169 F.3d 687 (absence of specific information about interior occupancy negates reasonable suspicion for sweep)