Order — United States v. Jamel Newman (D.R.I., Dkt. 94, October 4, 2022)

Summary

Order in United States v. Jamel Newman, Case 1:21-cr-00108-JJM-PAS, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Document 94, filed October 4, 2022, signed by Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. Jamel Newman, charged with wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, theft of government money, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, seeks to suppress evidence obtained during a protective sweep of his home while officers carried out an arrest warrant (ECF No. 81). The Court sets out the facts, the law on protective sweeps, and the parties' arguments. It concludes that the sweep was reasonable and limited in scope and duration, and denies the Motion to Suppress.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:21-cr-00108-JJM-PAS Document 94 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 5 PagelD #: 1034

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. )
) No. 21-cr-108-JJM-PAS-1
JAMEL NEWMAN )
Defendant. )
)
ORDER

Jamel Newman, charged with wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, theft of
government money, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, looks to
suppress evidence obtained during a protective sweep of his home conducted by police
while carrying out an arrest pursuant to an arrest warrant. ECF No. 81.!

FACTS

Early one morning, a large contingent of law enforcement officers entered Mr.
Newman’s home to execute an arrest warrant for Mr. Newman and one other. ECF
No. 84 at 18-19, § 37. They found both men in the living room/kitchen area and
apprehended them. J/d. at 19, 4 37.

In the kitchen there was a large object covered in a black cloth. ECF No. 84

at 19, § 38. Underneath it was a marijuana grow. Jd. at 19, 39. The officers

1 “A criminal defendant has no presumptive right to an evidentiary hearing on
a motion to suppress.” United States v. Cintron, 724 F.3d 32, 36 (ist Cir. 2013) (citing
United States v. D’Andrea, 648 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2011)). Mr. Newman has not made
a showing that there are “material facts *** in doubt or dispute, and that such facts
cannot reliably be resolved on a paper record.” United States v. Staula, 80 F.3d 596,
603 (1st Cir. 1996)). He also failed to “show that there are factual disputes which, if
resolved in his favor, would entitle him to the requested relief.” Jd.
Case 1:21-cr-00108-JJM-PAS Document 94 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 5 PagelD #: 1035

conducted a “protective sweep” of the residence. /d. at 19, | 38. In Mr. Newman’s
bedroom, the officers found Mr. Newman’s girlfriend and a child. Jd. The officers
also saw a Glock 19 pistol in plain view, along with ammunition. /d2 The gun was
inside a black case sitting on the dresser along with other items. /d. at 39. Based on

these observations, the officers obtained a search warrant and confiscated the gun
and ammunition. See id. at 38-41.

LAW

The Government carries the burden of proving that the warrantless search of
a residence adheres to any of the narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455 (1971); United States v. Rodriguez-
Pacheco, 948 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (‘the Fourth
Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house and warrantless
entries into a home are presumptively unreasonable.”). Any evidence obtained
through an illegal search is a “fruit of the poisonous tree” that a Court may not admit
into evidence against a defendant. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485-86,
488 (1963).

After an in-home arrest, law enforcement may conduct a protective sweep of

the premises if they have reasonable suspicion based on “articulable facts which,

2 “Agents conducted a protective sweep of the apartment, *** During the
protective sweep, agents observed a Glock 19 pistol on top of a TV stand in a bedroom
that is believed to be J. NEWMAN ’s bedroom. Agents also observed what appeared
to be several rounds of ammunition for an AK47 firearm and a cable lock that is
commonly used to secure firearms. The Glock 19 was located in the bedroom with a
person believed to be J. NEWMAN’s girlfriend and a toddler aged child.” ECF No. 84
at 19, { 38.
Case 1:21-cr-00108-JJM-PAS Document 94 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 5 PagelD #: 1036

taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a
reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an
individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Maryland v. Bure, 494 U.S.
325, 333-34 (1990). This reasonable suspicion standard is “considerably less
demanding than the level of proof required to support a finding of probable cause,’
but must be based on more than an unfounded speculation.” United States v.
Winston, 444 F.3d 115, 118 (ist Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted) 0.
Additionally, the duration of the protective sweep must be “no longer than is
necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger.” Buse, 494 U.S. at 335-36.
Further, a protective sweep must be “narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection
of those places in which a person might be hiding.” United States v. Delgado-Pérez,
867 F.3d 244, 251 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Buie, 494 U.S. at 327). Moreover,
regardless of the circumstances, a protective sweep may last “no longer than it takes
to complete the arrest and depart the premises.” Buze, 494 U.S. at 335-36.
ANALYSIS

Mr. Newman alleges that “there was no need for a protective sweep,” and that
“the firearm and ammunition were not in plain view” because “they were contained
inside a hard plastic case.” ECF No. 81 at 3. The Government responds by arguing
that the protective sweep was reasonable and necessary given all the circumstances.

ECF No. 85 at 5-6.

A review of the facts before the Court shows that the protective sweep

conducted by law enforcement was both called for and appropriately limited in
Case 1:21-cr-00108-JJM-PAS Document 94 Filed 10/04/22 Page 4 of 5 PagelD #: 1037

duration and scope. The officers knew that the suspects had a history of violence,
and they initially faced resistance when trying to enter the premises. They entered
a small apartment and saw a suspicious large, black-draped object holding an illegal
marijuana grow. They easily could see that there were other rooms nearby and had
no idea if others were in the home. Upon entering one of these rooms, they indeed
found a woman and child. In that same room, they also saw in plain view a weapon

and ammunition.

A protective sweep is “a quick and limited search of premises, incident

to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or

others,” that “is narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those

places in which a person might be hiding.” Many protective sweeps take

place following an arrest within a home.

United States v. Delgado-Pérez, 867 F.3d 244, 251 (1st Cir. 2017) Gnternal citations
omitted) (quoting Buse, 494 U.S. at 327).

Based on this confluence of facts, it was reasonable for the officers to have
conducted a brief protective sweep. They quickly checked the adjacent rooms to
ensure their safety. Upon entering one of these rooms, they immediately saw a
weapon, without opening any door or drawers. The officers properly limited the
sweep in both its scope and duration. They did not confiscate the weapon at that time
but sought a search warrant based on their observations. Law enforcement
conducted a “quick and limited search” incident to an arrest that was “narrowly

confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be

hiding.” Buze, 494 U.S. at 327. The protective sweep that they conducted was entirely
Case 1:21-cr-00108-JJM-PAS Document 94 Filed 10/04/22 Page 5 of 5 PagelD #: 1038

within the limited parameters approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and the First
Circuit.
The Court DENIES Defendant Jamel Newman’s Motion to Suppress. ECF

No. 81.

|

John J. McConnell, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

October 4, 2022


File and source

File

94.pdf

Size

1,819,048 bytes

SHA-256

2f2a2626e8ba53507642c636d5a9d33c06a3658cd1e508d6168ae8e927f9489b

Our copy

94.pdf

Original

No public link identified.