The testimony established that officers searched the home to protect themselves from others who may be in the house and pose a threat to their safety … Accordingly, we find no merit to Mr. Fields’s first assignment of error and it is overruled.
State v. Fields
Seventh District Appellate Court
Belmont County, Ohio
March 13, 2026
Why is this case important?
State v. Fields highlights that officers executing an in-home arrest warrant, especially in high-risk situations, may lawfully expand a protective sweep beyond the immediate area of arrest when specific, articulable safety concerns exist.
The Seventh District Appellate Court made clear that even after the suspect is secured, the threat to officers does not end. Factors such as a suspect’s violent history, the presence of other individuals, a juvenile fleeing the home, and sounds of movement or chaos inside the residence can justify clearing additional areas like an upstairs.
Background
DaJuan D. Fields, appeals a Belmont County Common Pleas Court judgment sentencing him to 24 to 29.5 years in prison. Mr. Fields entered a no contest plea to first-degree felony drug possession with a major drug offender specification (MDO) and a guilty plea to second-degree felonious assault with a repeat violent offender specification (RVO). Mr. Fields’s counsel and Mr. Fields pro se filed notices of appeal, which we consolidated into 25 BE 0038.
Mr. Fields asserts the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence found by law enforcement as they executed a search warrant at Mr. Fields’s house to locate and arrest him on the basis of an active arrest warrant. He contends police immediately located and placed him into custody on the main floor of his home, yet continued to search the home, even venturing upstairs and forcing open locked doors. Mr. Fields further asserts that the trial court erred by sentencing him to eight years in prison for felonious assault when the parties agreed to a recommended two-year sentence. He contends his guilty plea was unknowingly made because the trial court failed to offer him a chance to withdraw the plea after imposing this sentence.
[A] protective sweep of the main floor and upstairs was justified.
For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. While the trial court erroneously concluded that Officer Kubat’s room sweep on the main floor was not a protective sweep, we affirm its decision denying the motion to suppress because a protective sweep of the main floor and upstairs was justified.
High Risk Search Warrant Execution
Law enforcement officers were executing a high-risk search warrant of Mr. Fields’s home to locate him and effectuate his arrest on the basis of an arrest warrant for a serious felonious assault. They knew Mr. Fields’s violent criminal history, he was identified in an active drug investigation, and he had an active arrest warrant for felonious assault that caused serious bodily harm and involved other participants and possibly firearms. Officers also observed a juvenile run from the house immediately prior to execution of the warrant, and other individuals were found in the house.
Mr. Fields was Arrested in the Living Room
Adjacent Room had Four Individuals with Illegal Drugs in Plain View
After breaching the front door of Mr. Fields’s home, officers split to the left and right of the stairway to locate Mr. Fields. While officers arrested Mr. Fields in the living room, Officer Kubat advanced to an opposite room and encountered four individuals. He also observed a baggie of illegal drugs lying in plain view on the floor. Officer Kubat performed a justified protective sweep of this room because he knew Mr. Fields’s criminal history, knew the arrest warrant issued for Mr. Fields involved a violent felonious assault with other individuals who may have firearms, and he observed a juvenile run from Mr. Fields’s house before law enforcement entered the home to execute the warrant. Officer Kubat also believed he saw movement in this room upon breaching the front door.
Evidence discovered during the arrest of Mr. Fields.
Officers heard people yelling and screaming as Mr. Fields was arrested.
In addition, officers were justified in conducting a protective sweep of the upstairs of the home, which recovered a large bag of marijuana lying on a bed. The threat to the safety of the officers persisted even after they had arrested Mr. Fields and conducted a protective sweep of the main floor of the house. Law enforcement had not looked upstairs and individuals could have descended from upstairs to inflict harm. Officers heard people yelling and screaming as Mr. Fields was arrested and heard someone say that a person had run out of the back of the house. Officers had already apprehended a juvenile running from the home, they found and detained others on the main floor, and they knew Mr. Fields had a violent criminal history, was identified in a drug investigation, and had an active arrest warrant for the felonious assault that involved other participants and possibly firearms.
Mr. Fields was Indicted as a Major Drug Offender
On November 7, 2024, the Belmont County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Fields on two counts of felony-one drug possession with MDO specifications, two felony-one drug trafficking with MDO specifications, one felony-three having weapons while under disability, and a second-degree felony felonious assault with a RVO specification. Mr. Fields was arraigned and pled not guilty.
On December 5, 2024, the Belmont County Grand Jury issued an 11-count superseding indictment charging Mr. Fields with: 5 felony drug possession charges with one MDO specification; 4 felony drug trafficking offenses with one MDO specification and three specifications of trafficking in the vicinity of a juvenile; a second-degree felonious assault with a RVO specification; and a felony having weapons while under disability charge. The drug offenses involved fentanyl or a fentanyl-related compound, as well as methamphetamine. Mr. Fields was arraigned and pled not guilty.
Motion to Suppress is Filed
On December 2, 2024, Mr. Fields filed an amended motion to suppress. He asserted law enforcement executed an arrest warrant allowing them to enter his home in Barnesville, Ohio to search for and arrest him. He contended that although officers immediately located and secured him and others on the main floor of his home, they continued to search the remainder of his house, including its upstairs, which well exceeded the scope of their warrant.
The trial court held a suppression hearing on February 14, 2025. Defense counsel framed the issue as the following: Essentially, the first search warrant that was executed was the location of my client’s person, and that the officers in the case went beyond that in their initial search, which led them to secure a second search warrant to properly get the things that they had already acquired, in my view. The validity of the first search warrant was not challenged and is not challenged on appeal. Mr. Fields’s counsel requested that the court suppress the second warrant and fruit of the poisonous tree seized, including photos, videos, and statements.
Investigation Begins with a Felonious Assault
At the suppression hearing, Detective Dustin Hilderbrand of the Criminal Interdiction Unit of the Belmont County Sheriff’s Office testified for the prosecution. He indicated that police received as involved in an investigation into a felonious assault where the victim was seriously beaten and flown to a hospital.
Special Operations Branch [SWAT] Will Execute the Arrest Warrant
Detective Hilderbrand testified the sheriff’s department enlisted the aid of the Special Operations Branch (SOB) in executing the nighttime arrest warrant, which was essentially a SWAT team. He explained SOB was called because they were executing a high-risk warrant due to Mr. Fields’s prior attempted murder and felonious assault offenses, along with the current felonious assault with two other men who were in possession of firearms at that time.
Upon Approach a Juvenile Fled from the Home Then Ran Back Inside
Detective Hilderbrand recalled he was supposed to remain outside of Mr. Fields’s house until the house was breached, but a juvenile from inside of the house ran outside and they had to chase him back into the residence. He explained he and members of the SOB team then entered the residence and within 10 seconds, he made contact with Mr. Fields. He stayed with Mr. Fields while the SOB completed sweeping the house. He took pictures of the drugs found by officers in the main floor bedroom and upstairs on a bed and he was told they were found in plain view. He noted that the windows of the house had wooden shutters over the windows.
SOB located the person sought for arrest and then a secondary search is conducted for other people in the home.
Barnesville Police Department Officer and SOB team member Officer Kubat testified for the State. He participated in the search and was advised that Mr. Fields and others may be present in the house. He explained that an officer breached the door and upon entry, he observed individuals located to the left upon entry and he advanced to a room on the right while Chief Arbenz went to the left. Upon entry into the room on the right, Officer Kubat observed a male and two children, and a female coming from the bathroom area. The lights were on and he noticed a baggie lying on the ground in front of him with what appeared to be narcotics inside. He explained that upon initial entry, the first step of the search, SOB located the person sought for arrest and then a secondary search is conducted for other people in the home. He stayed in the room to the right until the secondary search was completed.
SOB Team Does not Wear Body Cameras
On cross-examination, Officer Kubat testified that even though high-risk warrants could involve danger, SOB teams do not wear body cameras. He described that upon entry into Mr. Fields home, he observed stairs in the middle, a room to the left and a hallway on the right leading to a second room. He noted Mr. Fields was apprehended in the room to the left and he encountered four individuals in the room to the right. Officer Kubat chose to proceed to the right upon entry because Chief Arbenz went to the left and he thought he saw someone move in the room to the right. He did not notice the baggie of drugs in the room to the right until he had the male lie on the ground because he was focused on the individuals in the room.
Chief Matthew Arbenz Testified this was a High Risk Warrant
Chief Matthew Arbenz of the St. Clairsville Police Department and SOB team leader also testified for the prosecution. He explained that anytime the SOB is called, it usually involves a high-risk situation and they conduct a protective sweep to protect themselves. He recalled that his team commander informed him that an arrest warrant was issued for Mr. Fields and officers requested SOB assistance in executing the warrant at his residence. He testified he was also advised the reason for the arrest was that Mr. Fields was one of several involved in injuring an individual fighting for his life in the hospital.
Chief Arbenz explained that the SOB does not typically search for evidence of crimes as their job is to search for people.
Chief Arbenz explained that the SOB does not typically search for evidence of crimes as their job is to search for people. He indicated that SOB is usually looking only to secure the person who is the subject of the arrest warrant, but they typically secure everyone in the house until they identify who is part of the warrant process. He recalled that upon gaining entry into Mr. Fields’s home, he heard Office Kubat state he had people on the left, so he also went to the left, where they found Mr. Fields, an adult female, and a juvenile male. He ordered Mr. Fields to get on the ground and held cover while another officer placed him into custody. He saw Mr. Fields’s son crying, so he patted him on the head and said no one was going to get hurt. He then heard yelling and someone say, “One ran, one ran out the back.” He noted that “[w]e still had an upstairs.”
Chief Arbenz and Other Officers Conduct a Protective Sweep of the Upstairs
Chief Arbenz continued that once he knew Mr. Fields was detained, he proceeded upstairs with other officers behind him. He moved down the hallway and entered a bedroom on the right, checked under the bed, and as he stood up, he saw others flowing through other areas of the upstairs. He testified he did not find any other individuals, but he observed a large bag on top of the bed that contained a large bag of marijuana inside. He testified he did not open any doors to get into the bedroom and he did not have to kick, ram, or shoulder any doors to enter. He also indicated no other SOB member had to force open any door in the house, except for the front door. He affirmed that the photo showed to him by the prosecution reflected the room he entered and no damage to the door frame.
On cross-examination, Chief Arbenz testified … He did not read the warrant.
On cross-examination, Chief Arbenz testified he was notified about participating in the SOB job at Mr. Fields’s house. He was informed about the possibility of the presence of firearms, but he did not encounter any in his search for individuals. He did not read the warrant, but was told they were there to aid with an arrest warrant and to make sure the house was secure.
[T]he SOB’s job was to look for people that could pose a threat or things that could pose a threat.
Chief Arbenz explained that he proceeded upstairs because he saw that the stairs had no SOB members on it and a threat was therefore posed because the area was not cleared. He indicated that the SOB’s job was to look for people that could pose a threat or things that could pose a threat, such as a bomb. He said the number one threat in securing an area is a human being, but if he saw something else posing a threat, he would let everyone else know about it.
Chief Arbenz testified that a person attempting to flee the scene where the SOB is about to enter signals a potential threat.
On redirect examination, Chief Arbenz testified that a person attempting to flee the scene where the SOB is about to enter signals a potential threat and knowing one of the subjects to the search is a suspect in a serious violent felony offense means a potential for violence against him and his team members. He explained that this would result in the temporary detention of anyone in the home until the officer in charge of the warrant identifies whether that person is the subject of the warrant. He further testified that if a house has a number of people inside who are unknown and are not the person they are searching for, this signifies that the SOB continues to search.
He stated that when he entered Mr. Fields’s residence, he saw a large amount of money in plain view and what appeared to be drugs in a bag on the first floor.
Defense counsel called Detective Jason Schwarck of the Belmont County Sheriff’s Office to testify. He explained that when the SOB is called to assist, they enter the house first and then the Belmont County deputies after the SOB has cleared the residence and performed a secondary clearance. He stated that when he entered Mr. Fields’s residence, he saw a large amount of money in plain view and what appeared to be drugs in a bag on the first floor. He also testified that he did not personally unlock any bedroom doors upstairs, but he heard someone mention it when he was downstairs.
Conflicting Body Camera Video
A body camera video was played to Detective Schwarck and he acknowledged that Detective Grant stated “upstairs locked,” on the video and “[T]hey basically busted it open.”
Motion to Suppress is Denied
On March 17, 2025, the trial court issued its decision denying Mr. Fields’s amended motion to suppress. The court made findings of fact. It then held that Officer Kubat entered the bedroom on the right on the main floor at the same time the other officers were securing Mr. Fields in a room to the left on the main floor. The court held that “Kubat’s conduct was clearly not a protective sweep but conduct undertaken to arrest the Defendant pursuant to the first search warrant.” The court continued that Officer Kubat’s conduct was lawful “and pursuant to a search warrant for the Defendant’s arrest.” The court found that the illegal drugs Officer Kubat discovered in the bedroom to the right were in plain view and therefore not the product of an illegal search and seizure.
[T]he trial court held that the SOB conducted a lawful protective sweep of the entire home.
The court further found that the marijuana found in the upstairs bedroom would have been found via inevitable discovery from the second search warrant since it was found in plain view upstairs in the bedroom. Nevertheless, the trial court held that the SOB conducted a lawful protective sweep of the entire home based on Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990), permitting the sweep of areas adjoining the place of arrest. The trial court also found that Mr. Fields presented a high risk of danger to law enforcement safety due to his prior violent convictions and allegations that firearms may be present in the house.
No Contest Plea
On June 30, 2025, the trial court held a hearing and Mr. Fields entered a no contest plea to Count 1 drug possession as to possession of a fentanyl-related compound, a felony of the first degree, with the MDO specification. He also entered a guilty plea to Count 9 felonious assault, a second-degree felony, with a RVO offender specification. The court journalized the pleas in a thorough entry on July 7, 2025.
[T]he court sentenced Mr. Fields to a mandatory minimum term of 24 years in prison, with a maximum term of 29.5 years possible.
On July 14, 2025, the court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Mr. Fields to: 11 years in prison for the Count 1 drug possession conviction; 5 years in prison on the MDO specification, to be served consecutively to the sentence for drug possession; and 8 years in prison for felonious assault, to be served consecutively to the other two sentences. Thus, the court sentenced Mr. Fields to a mandatory minimum term of 24 years in prison, with a maximum term of 29.5 years possible. The court issued its sentencing entry on July 17, 2025. {¶28} Both Mr. Fields pro se and defense counsel filed a notice of appeal. We issued two separate appellate case numbers, but then consolidated them into 25 BE 0038.
Appeal – Protective Sweep was Unreasonable
Mr. Fields asserts the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress because police lacked justification to conduct a protective sweep of his house beyond the area within his reach. He contends officers placed him in custody on the main floor of his home within 10 seconds of entering and had secured the main floor within 30 seconds. He estimates that in under one minute, he was arrested and others were detained in the house. He asserts no evidence existed showing others were in his house and a further protective sweep was therefore not justified. He quotes Chief Arbenz’s hearing testimony that he continued to sweep the house because it was “uncleared,” and he had no “specific incident of anything happening that would need to tell me that I need to keep doing my protective sweep.” He also quotes Chief Arbenz’s additional testimony that he was looking for “anything that could cause physical harm to us or whoever is going to be conducting a search of that house later.”
Mr. Fields Asserts Protective Sweep Exceeded the Scope by Forcing Open a Door
Mr. Fields further asserts that even if a protective sweep was justified, law enforcement exceeded the scope of that sweep by searching upstairs and forcing open locked doors. He concedes a sweep may be conducted after an arrest, but only if a “reasonable possibility” exists that others may be on the property and they pose a danger to law enforcement. He contends no such danger existed in his case. He also contends that officers forced open locked doors in order to find evidence.
Mr. Fields Alleges the Drugs were Not In Plain View Due to No Body Camera Video
Mr. Fields also maintains the trial court erred by finding the officers’ testimony credible because they knew the warrant involved drugs and “it is safe to assume that they were looking for drugs while they were there.” He cites Detective Hilderbrand’s testimony that he assumed the drugs he took pictures of were in plain view and those discovering the drugs merely alerted him to the presence of the drugs. He also emphasizes Officer Kubat was not wearing a body camera and was alone in the room in which he found drugs merely lying on the floor even though he had secured a male in that room within seconds, but it took him three minutes to find the baggie in plain view and radio the team.
Was the Bedroom Door Locked or Unlocked?
Mr. Fields also notes the prosecution did not call Officer Schwarck to testify as he stated at the hearing that officers “basically busted it open” when testifying about an officer searching a locked room upstairs. Mr. Fields also cites Officer Schwarck’s testimony about finding a large amount of money in the living room where Mr. Fields was arrested, but no one else testified about the money.
Established Case Law – Protective Sweep
The Fourth Amendment allows law enforcement officers to perform a protective sweep of the premises where an individual is arrested in order to protect officer safety. Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990). 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.” Id. Law enforcement may conduct this sweep without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, but it is restricted to a “cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding.” Id. This is because the arrest of a defendant in his home “puts the officer at the disadvantage of being on his adversary’s ‘turf.’” Id. at 333.
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)
The United States Supreme Court in Buie clarifies: We also hold that as an incident to the arrest the officers could, as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched. Beyond that, however, we hold that there must be articulable facts which, 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. Id. at 334. The Court emphasized that a protective sweep is only a cursory search of areas where a person may be found and not an entire search of the property. Id. at 335. It further cautioned that the sweep should take no longer than necessary to relieve an officer of this reasonable suspicion of danger and it should be no longer than the time it takes to complete the arrest of the defendant and leave the property. Id.
Mr. Fields Alleges the Protective Sweep was Not Justified
Here, Mr. Fields conceded at the suppression hearing that the initial warrant to search his home to locate and arrest him was legitimate. However, he asserts the protective sweep of his house was not justified because law enforcement immediately found and arrested him on the first floor.
This sweep does not require reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
The record establishes that Mr. Fields was quickly arrested. While the trial court found that Officer Kubat’s “conduct was clearly not a protective sweep,” we hold that it was. The Buie Court identified two types of protective sweeps. The first is a precautionary, cursory search incident to arrest done to protect officers from threats from others that may be inside the house. Buie, 494 U.S. at 327. This sweep does not require reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Id.
Buie permits officers to enter rooms at this point when they have not previously been swept for safety measures.
Officer Kubat swept the area adjacent to where Mr. Fields was found to ensure the safety of the officers. He testified that upon SOB breaching the front door, Chief Arbenz proceeded left to the living room while he advanced to a room on the right because he thought he saw movement there. It is reasonable for Officer Kubat to do so as it was unknown if Chief Arbenz had yet identified Mr. Fields as the subject of the arrest warrant in the other room and thus one of the other individuals Officer Kubat encountered could have been Mr. Fields or posed a threat to him and the officers on that floor. Moreover, Officer Kubat and the other officers knew Mr. Fields’s violent criminal history, they knew an arrest warrant was issued for him for drug trafficking, and they knew he was a suspect in a felonious assault with two other individuals who had firearms. In addition, Officer Kubat observed a juvenile run out of the house as officers were beginning to execute the search warrant and Officer Kubat thought he observed movement in the room to the right. Even if it Officer Kubat’s sweep occurred briefly after Mr. Fields’s arrest, Buie permits officers to enter rooms at this point when they have not previously been swept for safety measures. Buie at 333-334. The drugs he found in this room were in plain view in a baggie lying on the floor. Thus, they were properly seized.
Mr. Fields was high risk based on Mr. Fields’s prior violent convictions and the fact he was suspected in a felonious assault that seriously injured someone and involved other individuals and firearms
Officer Kubat’s protective sweep also meets the second type of protective sweep identified in Buie, that is, one with “articulable facts, which taken together with the rational inference 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.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 334. Officer Kubat knew the search for and arrest of Mr. Fields was high risk based on Mr. Fields’s prior violent convictions and the fact he was suspected in a felonious assault that seriously injured someone and involved other individuals and firearms. Officer Kubat was informed before entry that other people may be found in Mr. Fields’s house, as well as illegal drugs. Law enforcement additionally observed a juvenile run from Mr. Fields’s house upon their entry into the house. These circumstances constitute reasonable suspicion to warrant a prudent officer in believing that individuals may be present in the home that posed a threat to the safety of the officers at the scene.
They heard screaming and yelling upon Mr. Fields’s arrest and heard someone state that an individual ran out of the house.
The protective sweep of the upstairs is also justified by either type of the protective sweep identified in Buie. While Mr. Fields had already been apprehended, Officer Kubat located other individuals present on the main floor, and a threat to the safety of law enforcement remained from an unsecured upstairs. Alternatively, articulable facts, taken together with the rational inference from those facts, warranted a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the upstairs harbored individuals posing a danger to those in Mr. Fields’s house. Again, law enforcement knew they were executing a high-risk warrant for an individual with a violent history and they knew he was a suspect in the drug trafficking investigation and a felonious assault that seriously injured the victim. They also knew other individuals were suspected in the felonious assault and firearms may have been involved as well. They heard screaming and yelling upon Mr. Fields’s arrest and heard someone state that an individual ran out of the house.
Does Busting Open a Door Mean Forcing Entry?
As to forcing open a locked bedroom door upstairs, the trial court acknowledged uncertainty as to whether officers breached a locked bedroom door in which the bag of marijuana was found. However, the trial court made no further findings or conclusions concerning this issue. Mr. Fields notes the prosecution did not call Detective Schwarck to testify because he stated at the suppression hearing that officers “basically busted it open” when testifying about another officer searching a locked room upstairs.
The record indicates Detective Schwarck did not state that officers broke open a locked bedroom door upstairs.
The record indicates Detective Schwarck did not state that officers broke open a locked bedroom door upstairs. Rather, he was played the video from Detective Hilderbrand’s body camera in which a person he identifies as Detective Grant is heard stating, “[Y]eah, upstairs locked.” He then states, “I think he said, ‘they basically busted it open.’” This is the bedroom in which the bag of marijuana was found.
Mr. Fields presented no evidence that any of the upstairs doors were broken into by police.
However, Detective Hilderbrand testified that even though Mr. Fields stated he kept a room upstairs locked, none of the officers told him that any door was locked. He further testified that when he went upstairs, he observed the door of the bedroom was open and no signs indicated the door had been breached. He also testified that three doors accessed the bedroom and he was not told which door was locked. He indicated that if two of the doors were locked, one could still access the bedroom through the other door. Mr. Fields presented no evidence that any of the upstairs doors were broken into by police.
Conclusion
Further, no evidence supports Mr. Fields’s assertion that police searched upstairs and breached locked doors because they were searching for illegal drugs. The testimony established that officers searched the home to protect themselves from others who may be in the house and pose a threat to their safety. They were informed of Mr. Fields’s criminal history and the arrest warrant for drug trafficking and possible participation in a serious felonious assault with two other individuals and firearms. A juvenile ran from Mr. Fields’s house upon their entry and others were found in the home. The testimony also established that the illegal drugs found both in the bedroom on the main floor and in the upstairs bedroom were in plain view.
Holding
Accordingly, we find no merit to Mr. Fields’s first assignment of error and it is overruled.
There was a second appeal for Mr. Fields’s sentence. That appeal was also denied but is not evaluated in this article.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Fields, 2026 – Ohio – 867 and online news articles.
State v. Fields, 2026 – Ohio – 867 was issued on March 13, 2026 and is binding in the following Ohio Counties: Belmont, Carroll, Columbiana, Harrison, Jefferson, Mahoning, Monroe and Noble.
Lessons Learned
- Must Every Officer Serving a Warrant Read the Warrant? Mr. Fields defense attorney made an issue that St. Clairsville Police Matt Arbenz failed to read the warrant prior to serving it “On cross-examination, Chief Arbenz testified … He did not read the warrant.”. There is not legal requirement for every law enforcement officer to read an arrest or search warrant prior to service. Chief Arbenz was operating under the Collective Knowledge Doctrine. “[T]he “collective knowledge doctrine” or “fellow officer” rule where knowledge of law enforcement officers is imputed to others.” State v. Ojezua, 2016 – Ohio – 2659. The Seventh Circuit Appellate Court established a three-part test: (1) The officer taking the action must act in objective reliance on the information received; (2) The officer providing the information must have facts supporting the level of suspicion required; and (3) The stop must be no more intrusive than would have been permissible for the officer requesting it. United States v. Williams, 627 F.3d 247, 252–53 (7th Cir., 2010) Officers can use information obtained from other officers to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The Collective Knowledge Doctrine may also work against law enforcement if one officer is aware of exculpatory information that will likely imputed to all officers in the investigation. Consequently, Chief Arbenz was not required to read the warrant himself.
- Protective Sweep – There are two types of protective sweeps; one for a vehicle and that doctrine was established on and the other is for a home. The vehicle Protective Sweep Doctrine, established on July 6, 1983, Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), will not be evaluated in this article. On February 28, 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court in Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990) held “We … hold as incident to arrest the officer could, as precautionary matter and incident to the arrest the officer could, as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.”. To my knowledge an in-home protective sweep is THE ONLY law enforcement doctrine that does not require either reasonable suspicion or probable cause. However, to affect an in-home Protective Sweep this must begin with an in-home arrest. Thereafter to protect the arresting officers, other officers may search the rooms immediately adjoining looking for people who may initiate an attack, if the officers obtain additional information that people may launch an attack the search for persons. The U.S. Supreme Court described this extended search “The Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.”. The court describes this more expansive search provided there is a ‘reasonable belief’ there are people inside the home that may cause harm. The reasonable belief is a not a legal standard that that can be accurately contrasted with either reasonable suspicion or probable cause. However, courts are going to require some information to expand the search such as noises coming from rooms that are not ‘immediately adjoining’. In this case there were two critical factors that permitted the officers to expand the protective sweep beyond the living room where Mr. Fields was arrested. 1) The juvenile fled from the home, then returned to the home upon the approach of the Special Operations Branch. 2) Screaming upon the arrest of Mr. Fields. These two factors comported with the holding in Buie “The Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.”.
- Protective Sweep Limit – There are limits on in-home protective sweeps. On June 13, 2025 the First District Appellate Court held that once an arrestee is removed from the home following a lawful arrest, law enforcement may not re-enter the home to conduct a protective sweep. “After defendant exited the home and was taken into police custody outside the home, he no longer had access to any weapons or evidence inside the residence and posed no threat to the officers or anyone else … Not knowing whether anyone else was inside the residence is an insufficient pretext for a protective sweep to learn whether anyone is, in fact, inside.”. State v. Curry, 2025 – Ohio – 2083 For more on State v. Curry see Can Law Enforcement Conduct a Protective Sweep to Search for Contraband following an In-Home Arrest?.
Does your agency train on Assault on a Police Officer?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!