In the Supreme Court of the United States In the Supreme Court of ...

neighbor. R. at 5. Then, on June 1, 2011, there was another neighborhood burglary. R. at 5.
According to the Officer, the description of the burglary suspect matched the description of the
burglar who killed the Convict’s neighbor. R. at 5. The Officer also stated that witnesses saw the
suspect fleeing towards the Convict’s house. R. at 5. The police were going house to house,
ensuring the suspect was not hiding in any neighborhood homes. R. at 5. The Officer came to
the Convict’s house and asked to come inside to ask some questions because it was raining. R. at
5–6. Upon consent, the Officer entered the Convict’s living room. R. at 6.
The Officer, who recognized the Convict from his sawed-off shotgun conviction, was
familiar with the house’s layout and knew that the door directly across the living room led into
the kitchen. R. at 6. The Officer also knew that the house had a backdoor that led from the
kitchen into the backyard. R. at 6.
The Officer was not afraid of the Convict and did not believe the Convict was the
burglar. R. at 6. The Officer, however, was concerned that the burglar may have broken into the
Convict’s house. R. at 6. The Officer asked to look around the house. R. at 6. The Convict
claimed he normally kept his backdoor locked and had not heard or seen anything unusual. R. at
6. The Officer, however, wanted to ensure the burglar had not broken into the Convict’s house
seeking refuge. R. at 6. The Convict did not consent to this sweep, but he also did not rescind his
consent to the Officer’s presence in the house. R. at 6. The Officer then performed a brief
protective sweep as a precautionary measure. R. at 6. When the Officer opened the kitchen door
in search of intruders, he saw the semi-automatic handgun on the kitchen counter. R. at 6. The
Convict was arrested and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006). R. at 6.
3