United States v. Keefauver
2015 CAAF LEXIS 547
| C.A.A.F. | 2015Background
- Postal inspectors discovered a heavily taped package that smelled of marijuana addressed to Appellant's residence on Fort Campbell; CID took custody and arranged a controlled delivery.
- A postal inspector left the package on the porch; a 16-year-old stepson (TC-D) brought it inside about 40 minutes later.
- CID agents knocked, informed TC-D they would search, handcuffed and removed him after he became verbally hostile; SA Roche then entered and conducted a full sweep of the home, discovering drugs, paraphernalia, and unsecured rifles in plain view.
- SA Roche characterized the sweep as a "security sweep" and later as "standard procedure;" agents also deployed MWDs and conducted a subsequent full search.
- Appellant moved to suppress all evidence other than the package, arguing the sweep exceeded the verbal authorization and violated the Fourth Amendment; the military judge denied suppression, and the Army CCA affirmed.
- CAAF granted review limited to whether the protective sweep was appropriate in total and reversed the Army CCA, holding the sweep unlawful and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Keefauver) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective sweep beyond immediate adjoining areas was justified under Buie | Agents lawfully entered after controlled delivery; package inside plus odor, hostile resident reaction, and expert testimony about guns with drugs supported a reasonable belief others might be present and dangerous | Sweep was unsupported by specific, articulable facts showing others were present or dangerous; authorization limited to seizing package | Sweep invalid: Buie requires (1) facts supporting belief an individual was present and (2) facts supporting belief that person posed danger; both not met |
| Whether Buie extends to non-arrest lawful entries (e.g., execution of a search or seizure after controlled delivery) | Protective-sweep rationale applies where agents are lawfully in a home for reasons other than arrest | Buie concerns tied to in-home arrests only; should not be extended | Buie can extend to lawful home entries beyond arrests, but its strict two-pronged test still applies |
| Whether presence/smell of drugs or expert testimony that "guns follow drugs" can by itself justify a protective sweep | Drug odor and expert opinion support reasonable inference of danger and weapons on premises | Mere presence or smell of drugs and generalized testimony are insufficient without other specific facts | Insufficient: drug presence or generalized "guns follow drugs" testimony alone does not satisfy Buie |
| Whether inevitable discovery can validate evidence discovered after sweep | ACCA relied on sweep observation to find probable cause for a warrant and MWD search; thus evidence would inevitably be discovered | Evidence from the unlawful sweep cannot be saved without proof police would have obtained a warrant absent the illegal search | CAAF reversed ACCA and instructed inevitable-discovery analysis cannot rely on fruits of unlawful sweep; government must show it would have obtained a warrant without the unlawful sweep |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes protective-sweep framework and two-tiered rule)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (objective-reasonableness standard for stop-and-frisk; underlying standard for articulable facts)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (Sup. Ct.) (articulable facts standard applied to vehicle interior searches)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (Sup. Ct.) (Fourth Amendment tolerates only objectively reasonable legal mistakes)
- United States v. Wicks, 73 M.J. 93 (C.A.A.F.) (inevitable-discovery cannot rescue evidence absent proof police would have obtained a warrant)