United States v. Arthur Waters
883 F.3d 1022
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Police surveilled 2202 Monroe after learning Arthur Waters, wanted on outstanding warrants and a suspected drug distributor, was staying there with his fiancée Dannaica James and two children.
- Officers made a controlled call to Waters indicating he was at the residence and could supply drugs. James briefly left, returned, and then told officers Waters was inside; she was later detained and said no one else was present.
- As officers approached, they saw blinds move on the second floor and then on the first floor; officers announced and knocked but received no response before breaching the back door.
- Officers arrested Waters in the living room, handcuffed him, and conducted a protective sweep of the first floor. During the sweep, officers observed marijuana in plain view and, after moving a couch, found part of a firearm on the floor beneath it.
- Waters was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm, moved to suppress evidence from the sweep, pleaded guilty conditionally reserving the suppression issue, and was sentenced to 87 months after an upward variance from the Guidelines range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of protective sweep under Buie | Waters: sweep exceeded scope; he was removed before sweep so no danger justified it | Government: sweep was contemporaneous with arrest and justified by specific facts suggesting another person posed a threat | Court: sweep lawful — officers reasonably believed another person could be hiding and pose danger |
| Reasonableness of searching behind/under couch | Waters: no reasonable belief a person could be concealed in/behind couch | Government: training, couch movement, prior observations support belief someone could hide there | Court: district court not clearly erroneous; couch could conceal a person and sweep was permissible |
| Use of plain-view evidence found during sweep | Waters: evidence seized during unconstitutional sweep should be suppressed | Government: sweep constitutional so plain-view evidence admissible | Court: evidence admissible because sweep lawful |
| Substantive reasonableness of 87-month sentence | Waters: district court overweighted criminal history and double-counted factors already in Guidelines | Government: district court properly considered §3553(a) factors and justified upward variance | Court: sentence not substantively unreasonable; district court acted within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (establishes protective-sweep exception incident to arrest)
- United States v. Alatorre, 863 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2017) (emphasizes officer safety rationale for in-home protective sweeps)
- United States v. Boyd, 180 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 1999) (upholds protective sweep even when defendant removed before sweep)
- United States v. Cash, 378 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2004) (recognizes link between drug offenses and risk of violence supporting sweeps)
- United States v. Paopao, 469 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2006) (accepts reasonableness of believing a couch could conceal a person)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (district courts need not show extraordinary circumstances to justify variance)