SCT, 11/21/13, to be
published
The Court held that a “protective sweep” of Mr.
Brumley’s trailer was not permitted under the Fourth Amendment and Section 10
of the Ky. Constitution where Mr. Brumley was already in custody, outside the
trailer, when the officers made the decision to enter the trailer. The
fact that Mr. Brumley might be a gun owner mattered not. “Brumley's
rights under the Fourth Amendment cannot be diminished simply by exercising his
rights under the Second Amendment.” Neither did it matter that officers
heard a noise from the trailer. What is required for a Constitutional
protective sweep is “facts reasonably demonstrating that Brumley's home
harbored not just an additional individual, but rather an ‘individual posing a
danger to those on the arrest scene.’" The Court observed, “[The
officers’] primary objective of arresting Brumley without mishap having
been achieved, an attentive departure from the premises with their prisoner
would surely have been safer than an invasion of the home.”
Shanda
West-Stiles and C. B. Bates of the Columbia trial office represented Mr.
Brumley before the circuit court and preserved this issue, and Emily Rhorer
represented Mr. Brumley on appeal.
Contributed by Karen Maurer
