United States v. Juan Alatorre, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12409

Early-morning arrest warrant execution at Alatorre’s home by an eight-member Metro Area Fugitive Task Force; officers used a two-by-four-foot ballistic shield and worked in formation.
Before entry, officers heard movements and quiet voices behind the closed door and blinds, and someone approached then retreated from the door; multiple knock-and-announce attempts preceded opening.
Alatorre opened the door, was handcuffed and removed to the front porch; he identified one other occupant (his girlfriend), who was then brought to the porch.
Officers remained concerned there might be others inside who could pose a danger given (a) audible/visual signs of other persons, (b) occupants’ hesitancy, and (c) Alatorre’s history of concealed weapons and violent conduct.
Three officers conducted a ~two-minute protective sweep of rooms immediately adjoining the entry; no persons were found but guns, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia were observed in plain view.
A search warrant was later obtained; Alatorre pled guilty conditionally and appealed the denial of his suppression motion arguing the sweep and subsequent seizures were unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a warrantless protective sweep was justified incident to Alatorre’s arrest at his front door	Alatorre: sweep was unjustified because he was quickly secured on the porch and could have been removed from premises, so no reasonable belief of others posing danger	Government: audible movements, retreating person at door, occupants’ hesitancy, and Alatorre’s violent/concealed-weapons history gave officers specific and articulable facts to reasonably believe someone else could be inside and dangerous	Sweep was justified — officers had reasonable belief based on specific, articulable facts supporting a protective sweep under Buie
Whether the sweep’s scope/duration and the plain-view seizures were lawful	Alatorre: even if sweep permissible, it exceeded Buie’s limits or was prolonged such that plain-view evidence was tainted	Government: sweep was quick (≈2 minutes), limited to spaces large enough to hide a person, and incriminating items were in plain view and immediately apparent	Sweep’s scope/duration were reasonable and brief; plain-view observations and subsequent seizures/ warrant were lawful and untainted

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (authorizes quick, limited protective sweeps incident to in-home arrests to ensure officer safety)
United States v. Davis, 457 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Waldner, 425 F.3d 514 (8th Cir. 2005) (protective-sweep justification reviewed de novo)
United States v. Boyd, 180 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 1999) (protective sweep upheld though defendant was handcuffed and removed)
United States v. Green, 560 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-view seizure permitted during properly limited protective sweep)
United States v. Williams, 577 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2009) (hindsight that no one else was present does not render sweep invalid)