United States v. Timothy Kinney
638 F.2d 941 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A warrantless 'protective sweep' of a residence following an arrest made outside the home is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless government agents have objective facts that demonstrate a serious and demonstrable potential for danger from other individuals inside.
Facts:
- On February 22, 1979, Kenneth Workman robbed the Superior Savings and Loan Association at gunpoint.
- A bank teller who knew Timothy Kinney saw him in front of the bank just as the robbery began.
- The teller identified the robber as someone named 'Kenny' whom she had previously seen in the bank with Kinney.
- After Workman was arrested on March 1, 1979, he told FBI agents that he and Kinney had planned the robbery and divided the money at the apartment Kinney shared with his girlfriend.
- FBI agents went to the apartment with an arrest warrant for Kinney.
- When Kinney opened the front door, an agent grabbed his arm, pulled him out onto the porch, and placed him under arrest and in handcuffs on the porch.
Procedural Posture:
- Timothy Kinney was charged with aiding and abetting bank robbery in the United States District Court.
- The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence found during two searches of his apartment.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress, ruling that the initial protective sweep was lawful.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Kinney.
- Kinney (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless 'protective sweep' of a suspect's residence violate the Fourth Amendment when the suspect is arrested on the porch outside the residence and there are no objective facts indicating a serious and demonstrable potential for danger from others inside?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
Yes, such a protective sweep violates the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to a house, which cannot be crossed without a warrant or exigent circumstances. Because Kinney was arrested outside his apartment, the agents had no right to enter the dwelling. The government failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances, as the agents' generalized fear of potential danger was not supported by objective facts. Kinney's only known accomplice was already in custody, and the noises heard from inside the apartment were of a type likely to occur in any occupied dwelling and did not constitute a physical threat. Therefore, the warrantless entry and subsequent protective sweep were unconstitutional. However, the conviction is affirmed because the subsequent search warrant was supported by sufficient untainted evidence, making the illegally seized gun of minor importance.
Concurring - Edwards, C.J.
Yes, the search was unlawful. I concur that the conviction must be affirmed due to the validity of the second search warrant. I also agree with the majority's analysis that the initial entry into the apartment was unlawful. Since the arrest was effectuated on the porch, there was no necessity, exigent circumstance, or consent to authorize a warrantless entry. Because the entry itself was unlawful, any subsequent search is clearly unlawful as well, and discussion of the protective sweep is dicta.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kennedy, J.
No, the protective sweep did not violate the Fourth Amendment under these circumstances. While I concur that the conviction should be affirmed because the search warrant was supported by independent probable cause, I dissent from the holding that the entry and sweep were unlawful. The agents' decision to take Kinney back inside was a reasonable act of prudence, given that he was not fully clothed, it was March in Ohio, and a crowd was gathering. The subsequent protective sweep was justified by the officers' reasonable apprehension for their safety, based on Kinney's violent criminal history, his association with other armed robbers, and the noises and movement observed inside the residence. This slight intrusion into Kinney's privacy was a reasonable precaution to ensure officer safety.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle from Payton v. New York that the Fourth Amendment creates a strict barrier at the entrance of a home, which cannot be breached without a warrant or true exigent circumstances. The court narrows the 'protective sweep' exception, clarifying that it requires specific, articulable facts pointing to a real danger from other persons, not just a generalized suspicion. The decision distinguishes arrests made outside a home, where the justification for entry is extremely high, from those made inside. The court's ultimate affirmation of the conviction, despite the illegal sweep, also illustrates that a Fourth Amendment violation will not necessarily invalidate all subsequent evidence if a later search is supported by sufficient, untainted probable cause.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Timothy Kinney