skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 97896 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Protective Sweep Doctrine - Protecting Arresting Officers From Attack By Persons Other Than the Arrestee
Journal: Catholic University Law Review  Volume:33  Issue:1  Dated:(Fall 1983)  Pages:95-145
Author(s): P R Joseph
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 51
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper examines two justifications for a protective sweep without a search warrant: a blanket right exists to conduct a protective sweep incident to every arrest inside a premises or such a sweep is justified on a case-by-case basis due to the exigent circumstances surrounding the particular arrest.
Abstract: After Chimel v. California (1969), protective sweeps were neither foreclosed nor specifically authorized by the Supreme Court. While a protective sweep is always a search under the fourth amendment, it is justified by a need to safeguard arresting officers from possible attack from persons other than the arrestee. To maintain the balance between citizens' privacy and officers' safety, a narrow protective sweep rule must be adopted. A case-by-case justification is generally preferable to a per se rule, since it is more protective of fourth amendment rights. However, the case-by-case approach neither works well for the courts nor provides sufficient guidance for officers. In practice, a tightly crafted, sharply defined, and narrow per se rule might provide more protection to fourth amendment values. Under this rule, the protection of arresting officers appears to justify a protective sweep of the premises whenever the officers do not know for a fact that no persons other than the arrestee are on the premises. No search of other persons on the premises should be permitted, and a protective sweep should be limited to a walk-through of the premises and a brief visual scan of each room. The rule should limit the amount of time allowed for a protective sweep and not authorize the opening of any areas within a room. Further search may be justified only by reasonable suspicion that others are present and their intentions may be hostile. When the arrest is conducted outside the premises, there is no per se right to enter the premises to conduct a protective sweep. The article includes 225 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Legal doctrines; Right of privacy; Search and seizure laws; Warrantless search
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.