United States v. DeAngelo Vanhook
20-5949
| 6th Cir. | Jun 8, 2021Background:
- Fugitive Apprehension Team went to Vanhook’s grandparents’ home seeking homicide suspects; homeowner consented to officers entering.
- Vanhook exited an adjoining bedroom and was arrested in the living room; Detective Fox entered the bedroom to ensure no one else was present.
- While scanning the unlit bedroom with a flashlight, Fox saw a jar containing marijuana and money; he kneeled and looked under the couch because of prior experience of people hiding in/under/inside couches.
- From that lawful vantage during the sweep, Fox observed an AR-15–style rifle under the couch without moving anything; officers then secured the scene and obtained a warrant.
- Vanhook moved to suppress all evidence obtained from the residence, arguing the under-couch inspection exceeded the protective-sweep scope because the couch could not conceal a person; the district court credited Fox’s testimony and denied suppression.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the sweep and plain-view observation were lawful and rejecting challenges to the warrant and Leon good-faith arguments.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inspecting under the couch during a protective sweep exceeded its scope | Sweep lawful; articulable facts justified checking spaces where a person could hide | Fox exceeded sweep: couch too low/undisturbed to conceal a person | Held: Sweep lawful—detective’s experience and information made it reasonable to check under couch |
| Whether the AR-15 was in plain view | Gun was seen from a lawful vantage during sweep; incriminating character immediately apparent | Gun not in plain view because the detection required an unlawful inspection | Held: Gun was in plain view—officers lawfully swept the bedroom and the rifle’s incriminating nature was apparent |
| Whether the subsequent search warrant was tainted by the alleged illegal observation | Warrant valid; observation was lawful so affidavit not tainted | Warrant invalid because affidavit relied on evidence from an illegal sweep | Held: Challenge fails because the underlying observation was lawful |
| Whether Leon good-faith exception applies to cure a defective warrant | N/A (not needed because sweep lawful) | Leon doesn’t apply if underlying search illegal | Held: No need to rely on Leon; warrant issues moot because sweep and plain-view observation were lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (establishes protective-sweep doctrine)
- United States v. Archibald, 589 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes two types of protective sweeps and standards)
- United States v. Bass, 315 F.3d 561 (6th Cir. 2002) (lifting mattress/box spring within protective sweep)
- United States v. Lanier, [citation="285 F. App'x 239"] (6th Cir. 2008) (looking under bed permissible during sweep)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain-view doctrine principles)
- United States v. Clancy, 979 F.3d 1135 (6th Cir. 2020) (plain-view elements)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Waters, 883 F.3d 1022 (8th Cir. 2018) (couch can harbor a dangerous individual)