United States v. Laudermilt
2012 WL 1548737
4th Cir.2012Background
- 911 call reports Laudermilt threatening family with a gun at his residence; officers respond to a domestic-violence scenario near West Liberty University in Wheeling, WV.
- Officers arrest Laudermilt after he exits the house; the firearm is unaccounted for and at least one other person may be inside the home.
- A protective sweep of the residence is conducted after the arrest to locate additional occupants; a 14-year-old autistic brother, Pritt, is in the kitchen area during the sweep.
- During the sweep, Deputy Bise discovers a rifle in plain view on a gun rack in the pantry as Pritt is moved to the kitchen; the firearm is seized.
- There was conflicting testimony about how many people were inside the home; the duration of the sweep was about five minutes; the district court granted suppression, but the Fourth Circuit reverses, upholding the protective sweep and subsequent seizure as consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective sweep was justified under Buie. | Laudermilt’s case relies on a Buried in post hoc rationalizations. | Laudermilt contends the sweep exceeded permissible scope or duration. | Yes; sweep justified, but its scope/duration upheld. |
| Whether the firearm seizure remained valid if the sweep had ended after Pritt was secured. | Firearm seized after residence secured is impermissible. | Officers acted to ensure safety of a vulnerable minor; seizure permissible. | Yes; seizure permissible even if sweep ended. |
| Did officers have reasonable basis to question Pritt about the firearm to ensure safety? | Inquiry about firearm was unnecessary after securing the scene. | Inquiry to ensure safety of a vulnerable child was reasonable. | Yes; reasonable to ask about firearm for safety. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (protective sweep standard; limited scope and duration)
- Jones v. United States, 667 F.3d 477 (4th Cir. 2012) (protective sweep arising from an arrest at a home; safety of occupants)
- United States v. Taylor, 624 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (protective searches in child-safety contexts; safety considerations)
- United States v. Mora, 519 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2008) (emergency/government safety considerations in searches)
- United States v. Cavely, 318 F.3d 987 (10th Cir. 2003) (protective sweep justified by concern for others in home)