Result of Prior Search, Presence of Unanticipated Person During Arrest, Supported Protective Sweep

US v. Everett: Everett was involved in a drug distribution operation in which he was “known to sell ‘practically . . . everything’” in North Carolina. He had two associates to whom he would sell large amounts of (among other things) marijuana, who would then distribute the drugs. One of the associates, Murray, was arrested and gave a statement to police that pointed to an apartment used by Everett as a stash house. Officers executed a search warrant there, recovering drugs and a firearm (among other things).

Officers obtained an arrest warrant for Everett and tracked him to a different apartment. Everett was home with officers arrived, along with his wife, a friend, and two children. Officers decided to do a protective sweep of the apartment, during which they discovered multiple firearms and some THC gummies. They eventually obtained a warrant to search the apartment and seized four firearms, “at least” $65,000 in cash, and other drug paraphernalia. After being charged with multiple drug and firearm counts, Everett unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence found in the apartment where he was arrested. He was found guilty of all counts at trial and sentenced to 480 months in prison.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Everett’s convictions and sentence. His main challenge to the convictions was that police lacked the necessary concern to conduct the protective sweep of the apartment where he was arrested, which led to the seizure of significant evidence used against him. The court concluded that the officers had sufficient evidence to reasonably believe that another dangerous person was present, based both on what was found in the search of the stash house (the firearm, particularly), evidence that Everett was a “high-level drug dealer,” the presence of unexpected people at the apartment, and the presence of security cameras outside the apartment. As to his sentence, Everett’s primary challenge was the district court’s reliance on Murray’s statement to police in attributing relevant conduct to him, rather than Murray’s trial testimony, which was less specific as to amounts. The court concluded that the district court’s determination that Murray’s initial statement was credible was not clearly erroneous.