United States v. Marcus Henderson
748 F.3d 788
7th Cir.2014Background
- Police responded to a domestic-disturbance/possible-hostage report: Winfield showed texts from Crystal Davis claiming she was being held at Henderson’s house and that Henderson was dangerous and had weapons.
- Officers established a perimeter and used a PA to order occupants out; movement was seen inside and a standoff continued for over an hour.
- Davis exited in tears ≈15 minutes after SWAT arrival and told officers she had been threatened with a handgun and could not leave because exits were deadbolted and Henderson had the keys.
- Henderson voluntarily exited later, was arrested and searched (no weapons found); officers then used his keys but could not open the front door and forced entry through the back.
- SWAT conducted a brief (≤5 minute) protective sweep, saw firearms and marijuana-grow remnants in plain view, then obtained a warrant and conducted a full search that uncovered drugs and five firearms.
- Henderson was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3); he appealed arguing the protective sweep was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protective sweep was reasonable under Buie | Henderson: no articulable facts supported belief someone dangerous remained in the house after his arrest | Government: reports of hostage, corroborating texts, observed movement, locked doors, two-story house, and weapon-report justified a limited sweep | Affirmed: sweep reasonable; officers had specific and articulable facts to justify it |
| Whether officers should have confirmed details with the alleged victim before sweeping | Henderson: officers should have texted or otherwise confirmed Davis’s statements about occupants | Government: officers cannot rely solely on statements at scene; SWAT entry to ensure safety is permissible | Rejected Henderson’s argument; officers need not accept statements and may secure premises to prevent ambush |
| Scope and duration of the sweep | Henderson: sweep was an unreasonable search beyond permissible scope | Government: sweep was cursory, ≤5 minutes, no moving of items, limited to areas where persons could hide | Held reasonable: scope and duration consistent with Buie protective-sweep limits |
| Admission of evidence discovered during sweep | Henderson: evidence discovered during unlawful sweep must be suppressed | Government: evidence was in plain view during lawful sweep and later corroborated by warrant search | Evidence admissible; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) (establishes protective-sweep exception and its "specific and articulable facts" standard)
- Kentucky v. King, 131 S. Ct. 1849 (2011) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness and warrant principles)
- United States v. Starnes, 741 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2013) (applies Buie standard; emphasizes fact-intensive inquiry and ambush risk)
- United States v. Tapia, 610 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2010) (protective sweep reasonableness when officers face potential ambush)
- United States v. Burrows, 48 F.3d 1011 (7th Cir. 1995) (affirming limited sweep to ensure officer safety)
- United States v. Barker, 27 F.3d 1287 (7th Cir. 1994) (protective sweep reasonable where officer believed area harbored weapons/persons)
- United States v. Richards, 937 F.2d 1287 (7th Cir. 1991) (officer need not obtain warrant to enter where hostages suspected)
- United States v. Delgado, 701 F.3d 1161 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)