Guzman v. Commonwealth, 375 S.W.3d 805

Officers responded to neighbor report Guzman involved in drugs and prostitution; neighbor observed Guzman with a white man and a black man that night.
Demerit, a black male on probation for drug trafficking, was stopped and searched; no contraband found and he was released.
Officers conducted a knock-and-talk at Guzman’s apartment after confirming no immediate threat and Guzman consented to entry.
Inside, officers observed a cardboard box, a lamp, and a blanket over a doorway; a blanket sweep was conducted of a bedroom and kitchen.
A spoon with a burned bottom and white residue was found during the sweep; Guzman and Hendren denied knowledge.
Guzman consented to a search after being told one officer would remain and a warrant would be sought; cocaine and drug paraphernalia were seized; suppression motion denied; Guzman appealed, challenging the protective sweep as unlawful.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the protective sweep exceeded consent and became unlawful	Guzman; sweep extended beyond consented area.	Commonwealth; sweep justified to ensure officer safety.	Sweep was unlawful; tainted evidence suppressed.
Whether consent to search encompassed entire apartment	Consent limited to living room as invited.	Consent to enter implied broader scope for investigation.	Consent did not extend to entire house; scope limited by objective reasonableness.
Whether assurances about seizure of the residence tainted consent	But-for assurances, consent would still be voluntary.	Assurance did not invalidate consent.	Assurances to seize while awaiting warrant render consent invalid; evidence suppressed.
Whether seizure without probable cause and exigent circumstances was valid	Search incident warrantless entry permissible with consent.	No exigent circumstances or probable cause; invalid search.	Invalid; evidence fruit of the poisonous tree; need warrant or exigent probable cause.

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (limits on search incidental to arrest; scope of search must be tied to arrestee)
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep exception for officer safety)
Krause v. Commonwealth, 206 S.W.3d 922 (Ky. 2006) (coercive methods to obtain consent render invalid)
Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991) (consent scope measured by objective reasonableness)
Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (1984) (distinguishes seizures from searches; probable cause required for seizure and restraint)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (reasonable temporary seizure with probable cause while obtaining warrant)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)
Rabinowitz, 389 U.S. 56 (1950) (search incident to lawful arrest limited to area of immediate control)
Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan, 338 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2003) (scope of consent limits)
Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635 (2002) (requires probable cause and exigent circumstances for warrantless searches)