United States v. Edward Gandia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that police officers unlawfully engaged in a protective sweep in part because “there was no need for [them] to enter [the defendant’s] home in the first place”
• determining that officers lacked specific articu-lable facts to justify a search, because they looked in “an adjoining room to which [defendant] had no ready access”
• acknowledging that “there was no need for the police officers to enter [defendant’s] home in the first place” and that they “could have avoided the disadvantage of being on [defendant’s] adversary’s home turf’
• finding no information to support a protective sweep, and distinguishing cases where officers heard or observed evidence that others were present on the scene
• explaining that the scope of a protective sweep is “narrowly confined”
• noting that, while the police officers were not required to take the defendant at his word when he said that he lived alone, “they also had no evidence to the contrary that would indicate a third person might be hiding there”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).