Also known as:Buie sweep · Buie protective sweep · Maryland v. Buie · protective sweep
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle permitting law enforcement officers to conduct a limited protective sweep of areas in a home beyond the arrestee's immediate control incident to an in-home arrest. Officers must possess a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area harbors an individual posing a danger to them. The sweep must be cursory and confined to places where a person could hide.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Thud Prompts Closet Sweep
Agents arrested Benito Benitez in the kitchen of his condominium on kickback charges. While handcuffing him, they heard a soft thud from a nearby walk-in closet and saw multiple open briefcases suggesting recent activity. The agents conducted a quick sweep of the closet and spare bedroom, looking only where a person could hide, and discovered documents. The sweep was upheld because the thud and briefcases supplied specific facts supporting a reasonable belief that a dangerous person might be present.
Creak Justifies Stockroom Check
Officers arrested Brooke Bryant in the living room of her apartment above a clothing shop. After securing her, Officer Cruz noticed a second warm plate of food and heard a floorboard creak in the attached stockroom. He quickly walked through the adjoining spaces looking only where a person could hide and found business records in plain view. The walkthrough was constitutional because the warm plate and creak provided articulable facts indicating a possible hidden accomplice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Study Supplements
Basement Sweep After Muddy Boots
Officers arrested Brandon Black in the living room of his townhouse on assault charges. Sergeant Ramirez saw muddy work boots near the open basement doorway and smelled fresh cigarette smoke rising from below. Intelligence reports linked Black's crew to armed gatherings in the basement. Ramirez descended briefly and checked behind drywall sheets where a person could hide. The limited sweep was valid because the boots, smoke, and reports supplied specific facts supporting a reasonable belief of danger.
Pantry And Porch Visual Check
Deputies arrested Bethany Boyd in the mudroom of her rural farmhouse after a violent altercation. They observed fresh boot prints leading into the pantry and saw Laura glance repeatedly at the pantry door. Steaming coffee mugs and additional prints on the back porch indicated recent activity by farmhands. The deputies performed a quick visual sweep of spaces where a person could hide and found no one. The sweep satisfied the rule because the prints and glances constituted specific and articulable facts of possible danger.
Hot Pursuit Leads To Bedroom Sweep
Coast Guard officers pursued Luis after witnessing a stabbing on the marina dock. Luis ran into a nearby cottage and the officers forced entry. They searched every room and closet until locating him in a bedroom and seized a bloody knife from a closet shelf. The search of the rooms and closets was permissible because the continuous hot pursuit justified the entry and the limited sweep for a potentially armed suspect.
Office Sweep Beyond Wingspan
Officers arrested Rick at his desk in a small university office. After handcuffing him, they searched the desktop and low shelves within two feet but then crossed the room to break open a locked filing cabinet eight feet away. The cabinet search exceeded the immediate control area and was not justified as a protective sweep because no specific facts indicated a hidden dangerous person in that location.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What standard must officers meet to justify a protective sweep beyond the arrestee's immediate control?+
Officers must possess a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area harbors an individual posing a danger. The belief cannot rest on a mere hunch or generalized concerns about the offense. The sweep must remain brief and limited to places where a person could hide.
Supporting sources
Does discovery of evidence during a lawful protective sweep invalidate the search?+
No. Officers may seize items in plain view during a valid protective sweep even if the items are not weapons. The sweep's legality turns on the safety justification and its limited scope, not on whether evidence rather than a person is found.
Supporting sources
Can past intelligence reports alone support a protective sweep?+
Generalized reports of habitual behavior are insufficient without particularized facts showing a person may be present at the time of arrest. Contemporaneous observations such as sounds, smells, or physical signs of recent activity can combine with reports to supply the required reasonable belief.
Supporting sources
How does a protective sweep differ from a search incident to arrest?+
A search incident to arrest automatically permits officers to search the arrestee and the area within immediate control for weapons or evidence. A protective sweep requires an additional showing of specific facts suggesting a dangerous person may be hiding elsewhere in the home and is limited to a cursory check for persons.
Supporting sources
556 U.S. 332 (2009)Criminal Procedure
…broader. Finally, there may be still other circumstances in which safety or evidentiary interests would justify a search. Cf. Maryland v. Buie , 494 U. S. 325, 334 (1990) (holding that, incident to arrest, an officer may conduct a limited protective sweep of those areas of a house in which he reasonably suspects a dangerous person…
Criminal Law Constitutional ProtectionsConstitutional protections of accused persons · Arrest, search, and seizure [Fourth Amendment]NEXTGENFoundational