Establishing the Temporal Boundaries of Protective Sweeps under the Fourth Amendment

Introduction

United States v. Antoine Dwayne Riley, decided by the Sixth Circuit on May 30, 2025, addresses a critical aspect of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: how long and under what circumstances law enforcement may conduct a warrantless protective sweep incident to an arrest. The defendant, Antoine Riley, had barricaded himself in his bedroom after allegedly assaulting his mother. During a nearly two-hour standoff, officers obtained arrest warrants but no search warrants. When Riley eventually surrendered, officers performed a protective sweep of the upstairs bedroom and discovered two firearms in plain view. Riley, a convicted felon, was later charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for unlawful possession of those firearms. The narrow but significant question on appeal was whether the protective sweep had concluded—thus rendering the officers’ continued presence unlawful—before they observed the weapons. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Riley’s motion to suppress, clarifying that a sweep remains ongoing while officers take reasonable, situational steps to secure their safety.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit unanimously upheld the district court’s ruling that the officers’ seizure of the firearms fell within the established “protective sweep” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The panel identified two types of protective sweeps under Maryland v. Buie (1990): (1) an automatic cursory inspection of spaces immediately adjoining the arrest site, and (2) a broader sweep requiring articulable facts suggesting a danger. Riley’s counsel conceded the legality of the sweep itself; his sole preserved challenge was that the sweep had ended when officers announced “clear,” and therefore the plain-view discovery of firearms was outside the sweep’s scope. The court applied an objective test, examined body-camera footage and officer testimony, and found no clear error in the district court’s factual finding that officers were still in the process of securing the confined, cluttered bedroom when the weapons came into view. Accordingly, the plain-view seizure was deemed lawful and the conviction was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

1. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990): Buie established two protective-sweep categories: (a) a warrantless, no-suspicion‐needed cursory inspection of spaces immediately adjoining the arrest site, and (b) a broader sweep beyond those spaces predicated on “articulable facts” of potential danger.
2. United States v. Archibald, 589 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2009): Clarified Buie’s two sweep categories and reinforced that the first category requires neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion.
3. United States v. Trice, 966 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2020): Reiterated that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent one of the “few specifically established and well‐delineated exceptions.” Protective sweeps fall within one such exception.
4. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990): Articulated the “plain-view doctrine,” allowing officers to seize contraband without a warrant if its incriminating character is immediately apparent and the officer has a lawful right to be in the viewing position.
5. United States v. Taylor, 666 F.3d 406 (6th Cir. 2012) and United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2012): Both cases confirmed that brief, targeted protective sweeps in cluttered or confined spaces, so long as reasonably limited in scope and duration, satisfy Buie’s requirements.

Legal Reasoning

The Sixth Circuit’s reasoning unfolds in three steps:

1. Scope and Waiver: Riley disclaimed any challenge to the legality of entering and sweeping his bedroom under Buie. He instead argued that the sweep had concluded once officers announced “clear,” and any continued presence was unlawful. Because he affirmed the sweep’s validity at the district‐court hearing, he waived broader Buie challenges on appeal.
2. Objective Inquiry into Concluding the Sweep: The court reviewed body-camera footage and credibility findings to decide whether the protective sweep had in fact “ended” before the firearms were observed. The key facts: officers spent less than a minute ascending the stairs, scanning a cluttered loft, checking a doorless closet, and periodically holstering and redeploying weapons to avoid crossfire in tight quarters. The verbal “clear” signals were part of the ongoing sweep—not an explicit termination.
3. Application of Buie and Horton: Viewing the evidence most favorably to the government, the court held that the officers’ presence was still within the protective-sweep exception when the guns entered plain view. Under Horton, the officers had a lawful vantage point, and the gun’s incriminating nature was immediately apparent. Thus, the seizure complied with constitutional requirements.

Impact

This decision reinforces law enforcement’s flexibility in dynamic arrest scenarios. It clarifies that a protective sweep remains in effect until officers—objectively viewed—have completed all reasonable steps to secure a space, including verifying corners, holstering and re-drawing weapons to ensure officer safety, and double-checking areas where suspects might hide. Future litigants will find it more difficult to argue that a protective sweep “ended” the moment an officer uttered a single “clear” without examining the broader context and officer conduct. The ruling also underscores the importance of preserving challenges at the district level; Riley’s broader Buie arguments were waived. Finally, by reaffirming the plain-view doctrine’s compatibility with protective sweeps, the opinion solidifies prosecutorial reliance on evidence discovered during such cursory searches.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Protective Sweep: A quick, limited search for people who might pose a threat to officer safety when making an in‐home arrest. It is not a full search for evidence.
• Buie Sweep Types:
  • First Type: No suspicion needed. Officers can glance into adjoining spaces (e.g., closets or rooms right next to the arrest area).
  • Second Type: Requires reasonable suspicion that someone dangerous is hiding elsewhere in the home.
• Plain‐View Doctrine: If an officer is lawfully in a position and sees evidence of a crime or contraband on its face, they may seize it without a warrant.
• Waiver of Argument: If a defendant tells the court they accept a legal justification (such as the initial sweep), they cannot later challenge that same justification on appeal.

Conclusion

United States v. Riley refines the temporal dimension of protective sweeps under the Fourth Amendment. By emphasizing an objective, fact-based assessment of when a sweep truly concludes, the Sixth Circuit ensures that officers retain the latitude necessary to secure their environment safely. The decision also highlights procedural lessons: litigants must clearly preserve their arguments in the district court to avoid waiver on appeal. Ultimately, Riley cements the principle that a protective sweep—so long as reasonably executed in duration and scope—supports the plain‐view seizure of contraband discovered in the process, thus bridging Buie’s safety rationale with Horton’s plain‐view doctrine.