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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

District Court sentences are reviewed for reasonableness under the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Whether an offense is a violent felony under the ACCA, however, is reviewed de novo. United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2009). ARGUMENT The Government faces the extraordinary burden of protecting its citizens from present and future danger. Both protective sweeps and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) serve this essential government function. Protective sweeps allow law enforcement officers to dispel threats of present danger. The ACCA prevents future harm by incarcerating certain repeat offenders. This Court should affirm the Thirteenth Circuit’s denial of the Convict’s motion to suppress and hold that non-arrest protective sweeps are reasonable because these limited encounters protect both citizens and officers. This Court should also reverse the Thirteenth Circuit’s sentence and hold that possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun is a violent felony under the ACCA because it indicates the possessor is likely to cause future harm. I. The Thirteenth Circuit correctly denied the Convict’s motion, as a matter of law, because officers should be permitted to perform protective sweeps when the officer is legally on the premises and has reasonable suspicion of an unknown danger. The Fourth Amendment only prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. It is not, therefore, “a guarantee against all searches and seizures.” United States v. Sharp, 470 U.S. 675, 682 (1985). When evaluating the reasonableness of a search, this Court considers the nature and circumstances of the Fourth Amendment intrusion, United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537 (1985), and balances the intrusion against “legitimate government interests,” Delaware v. Frouse, 440 U.S. 648, 554 (1979). This reasonableness standard is “flexible.” Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 934 (1995). 7
The three seminal rulings governing this case are Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), and Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990). In all three cases, this Court held that a protective search was reasonable. Buie, 494 U.S. at 332; Long, 463 U.S. at 1049–1050; Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. This Court based its decisions on the officers’ reasonable belief that they or others nearby were in danger. Buie, 494 U.S. at 334, Long, 463 U.S. at 1050; Terry, 392 U.S. at 30. This Court should uphold the Thirteenth Circuit’s decision because (1) the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard permits protective sweeps when officers or bystanders are in danger, and (2) the Officer performed a reasonable protective sweep. A. This Court should hold the Officer’s non-arrest protective sweep was permissible because Terry and its progeny allow officers to take safety measures when there is reasonable suspicion of danger. While the Fourth Amendment normally requires officers, prior to a search, to obtain a warrant backed by probable cause, this Court has recognized several exceptions to this general provision. See, e.g., United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118–19 (2001) (noting, in a home search not incident to arrest, courts must balance the intrusion against the individual with the government’s interests). Most notably, through Terry v. Ohio and its progeny, this Court recognizes warrant exceptions when the safety of law enforcement officers and others nearby is in jeopardy. See, e.g., Terry, 392 U.S. at 21. This officer safety rationale is the foundation for the reasonableness of protective sweeps, including those that officers perform in non-arrest home situations. 8
Page 1 and 2: No. 13-201 ________________________
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS ii Page Questions
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued iv Page
Page 7 and 8: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued vi P
Page 9 and 10: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-Continued B. F
Page 11 and 12: investigators quickly determined th
Page 13 and 14: Procedural History On October 1, 20
Page 15: eckless conduct. Other felony offen
Page 19 and 20: Amendment intrusion was outweighed
Page 21 and 22: go on unlimited fishing expeditions
Page 23 and 24: had waited for a search warrant to
Page 25 and 26: The First Circuit found a protectiv
Page 27 and 28: determine whether an offense qualif
Page 29 and 30: eexamined the same issue in light o
Page 31 and 32: F.3d at 7 (commenting that Congress
Page 33 and 34: Subcommittee on Crime of the House
Page 35 and 36: only other listed offenses involvin
Page 37 and 38: The possession of an unregistered s
Page 39 and 40: U.S. Const. amend. IV APPENDIX Rele
Page 41 and 42: (h) to receive or possess a firearm
Page 43 and 44: term applies regardless of whether
Page 45: U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?