United States v. Fernell Starnes
741 F.3d 804
7th Cir.2013Background
- Rockford police conducted an undercover buy implicating 922 N. Church Street (a converted two-story single-family into two apartments) and obtained a warrant to search the lower apartment.
- Hours before executing the search, officers knew a shooting had occurred at the residence and were warned of two aggressive pit bulls on the premises.
- Officers knocked, received no response, forced entry, and encountered a pit bull that charged; an officer shot and killed the dog on the first landing.
- After the shooting, an officer performed a quick sweep of the upstairs unit and observed drug paraphernalia in plain view; he found defendant Fernell Starnes in the upstairs bedroom and detained him.
- Officers left to obtain a second warrant for the upstairs; while a guard remained at the stairs, they later executed the second-floor search warrant and seized large quantities of cocaine, firearms, and cash.
- Starnes was charged federally and moved to suppress evidence from the upstairs, arguing the initial entry/sweep was an unlawful warrantless search; the district court denied suppression and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ warrantless entry into the house and subsequent sweep of the upstairs apartment violated the Fourth Amendment | Starnes: officers had no lawful basis to enter upstairs without a warrant; evidence from that entry must be suppressed | Government: officers were lawfully inside the dwelling and conducted a limited protective sweep based on specific, articulable facts of danger | Court: sweep was reasonable and permissible as a protective sweep; evidence admissible |
| Whether Buie-style protective sweep doctrine applies when entry is incidental to a search warrant (not an arrest) | Starnes: Buie and Tapia involve sweeps incident to arrests and thus are distinguishable | Government: protective-sweep rationale applies whenever officers are lawfully inside a dwelling and face a reasonable danger | Court: Buie standard applies regardless of whether entry followed an arrest, search warrant, or consent; sweep permissible |
| Whether facts supported a reasonable belief of danger justifying the sweep | Starnes: alleged inconsistencies in officers’ reports undermine claim of reasonable belief | Government: shooting at premises, reports of aggressive dogs (one seen charging upstairs), open doors between units, possibility of other access points, and gunfire alerted occupants justify concern | Court: numerous specific facts supported a reasonable, articulable belief of danger; credibility and minor inconsistencies do not defeat the sweep |
| Whether scope/duration of the sweep exceeded Buie limits | Starnes: sweep served investigative/search purposes beyond officer safety | Government: sweep was cursory, visual, limited to places a person could hide; officers secured occupants and vacated until a warrant obtained | Court: sweep was brief and limited; officer observed contraband in plain view during sweep; actions fell within Buie limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (Sup. Ct. 1990) (establishes protective-sweep standard: limited sweep permitted when officer has reasonable, articulable belief area harbors danger)
- United States v. Tapia, 610 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2010) (applied Buie in a fact-specific protective-sweep context and upheld sweep in residence)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (reiterates presumption against warrantless home entries and recognizes exceptions like protective sweeps)
- United States v. Gulley, 722 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2013) (discusses officers’ reasonable expectation that drug dealers are often armed)
- United States v. Burrows, 48 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir. 1995) (underscores the fact-intensive nature of protective-sweep analysis)