United States v. Paul Edward Hromada

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a protective sweep was valid where the “purpose of the protective sweep ... was to secure [the home] and investigate the officers’ reasonable suspicion” that others were in the home
• recognizing that “[g]uns and violence go hand-in-hand with illegal drug operations”
• noting that guns “are ‘tools of the trade’ in drug trafficking”
• stating that an arresting officer’s desire to search for evidence of illegal activity in executing protective sweep of defendant’s residence pursuant to in-home arrest was irrelevant to the legality of the search as protective sweep
• affirmative refusal of entry not required where officers would have to wait in vulnerable position
• “If an officer has lawfully executed a valid arrest warrant, he is not required to shut his eyes to contraband in plain view in order to accommodate the arrestee’s desire to avoid further charges.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).