United States v. Carlos Zazueta-Arrellano, No. 21-3827 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The officers reasonably believed, based on specific and articulable facts, that an individual inside defendant's residence posed a danger to officers on the scene, and the protective sweep of the house was permissible under the Fourth Amendment. [ August 10, 2022 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-3827 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Carlos Armando Zazueta-Arrellano Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska ____________ Submitted: June 17, 2022 Filed: August 11, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Carlos Armando Zazueta-Arrellano moved to suppress evidence of firearms and drug paraphernalia that law enforcement discovered when arresting a fugitive at Zazueta-Arrellano’s house. Zazueta-Arrellano argued law enforcement’s “protective sweep” of his house, which revealed the challenged evidence, was unconstitutional. The district court1 disagreed and denied Zazueta-Arrellano’s motion to suppress. Zazueta-Arrellano conditionally pled guilty to possessing firearms as a person unlawfully present in the United States, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), and was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment. He now appeals. Because we agree that law enforcement’s protective sweep complied with the Fourth Amendment, we affirm. I. Analysis We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that the protective sweep of Zazueta-Arrellano’s house was permissible. See United States v. Waldner, 425 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir. 2005). Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers who arrest someone at a residence may conduct “a quick and limited search of [the] premises . . . to protect the safety of police officers or others.” United States v. Waters, 883 F.3d 1022, 1026 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990)). To conduct such a “protective sweep” without a search warrant, the searching officer must reasonably believe, “based on specific and articulable facts . . . [and] the rational inferences from those facts,” that the residence harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the scene. United States v. Alatorre, 863 F.3d 810, 813 (8th Cir. 2017) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Buie, 494 U.S. at 327). Although a protective sweep “may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found,” Waldner, 425 F.3d at 517 (quoting Buie, 494 U.S. at 335), “[d]uring a properly limited protective sweep, the police may seize an item that is in plain view if its incriminating character is immediately apparent.” United States v. Green, 9 F.4th 682, 691 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Green, 560 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2009)). 1 The Honorable Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., then United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, now Chief Judge, adopting the findings and recommendation of the Honorable Michael D. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2- Zazueta-Arrellano argues law enforcement’s protective sweep violated the Fourth Amendment because the searching officers did not reasonably believe an individual inside his house threatened their safety. Zazueta-Arrellano concedes that law enforcement knew an individual was inside his house when they conducted the protective sweep, but he denies law enforcement had sufficient reason to believe this individual was dangerous. We disagree. At an evidentiary hearing on Zazueta-Arrellano’s motion to suppress, Investigator Dail Fellin, who conducted the protective sweep, articulated sufficient, specific facts to justify the protective sweep. Fellin testified law enforcement had observed four individuals enter the house, including Jesus Miranda, the fugitive whom officers sought to arrest. Yet only three individuals, including Miranda and Zazueta-Arrellano, emerged when officers commanded everyone inside the house to exit. Fellin also testified law enforcement had received information that there were weapons in the house and that an assault had occurred inside. He explained that officers arresting Miranda were concerned for their safety because the fourth individual did not come out along with the others and potentially had access to weapons in the house. Given Investigator Fellin’s testimony, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that law enforcement reasonably believed an individual inside Zazueta-Arrellano’s house posed a danger to those on the scene. Thus, we hold law enforcement’s protective sweep complied with the Fourth Amendment. II. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
