The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search of a convicted felon's vehicle, rejecting the government's argument that the search was justified as a protective sweep.
In *United States v. Johnson*, the three-judge panel addressed whether police had constitutional authority to search Tony Lee Johnson's vehicle without a warrant after arresting him for violating conditions of his supervised release. The search uncovered a handgun in the center console, leading to Johnson's conviction for felon in possession of a firearm.
Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote the opinion for the panel, which also included Chief Judge Priscilla Richman Elrod and Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan Haynes. The case arose from an appeal of Johnson's conviction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The legal dispute centered on the government's assertion that the warrantless search was justified under the protective-sweep exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Federal prosecutors argued that Johnson's romantic partner, Beatrice Simmons, was present at the scene and "poised to regain access to Johnson's vehicle," creating a potential security risk that justified the search.
The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, holding that Simmons' mere presence did not constitute sufficient justification for the warrantless search. "Because the officers observed nothing to suggest that Simmons was potentially dangerous, we hold that her presence did not justify the warrantless search of Johnson's vehicle," Clement wrote in the opinion.
The case began on July 26, 2023, when a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Texas issued a warrant for Johnson's arrest. Johnson had violated the terms of his supervised release by failing a series of drug tests, according to court documents. When officers arrested Johnson, they subsequently searched his vehicle without obtaining a warrant and discovered the firearm that led to his federal gun possession charges.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, generally requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching private property. However, courts have recognized several exceptions to this requirement, including protective sweeps designed to ensure officer safety during arrests.
The protective-sweep exception allows officers to conduct limited searches when they have reasonable suspicion that dangerous individuals may be present who could threaten officer safety. The government argued that Simmons' presence near Johnson's vehicle created such a scenario, potentially allowing her to access weapons or other dangerous materials in the car.
The Fifth Circuit's analysis focused on whether the specific circumstances justified expanding the protective-sweep doctrine to cover the vehicle search. The court found that officers had not observed any behavior or circumstances suggesting that Simmons posed a threat, making the warrantless search constitutionally impermissible.
This ruling adds to ongoing judicial interpretation of Fourth Amendment protections in cases involving individuals under federal supervision. Persons on supervised release, while subject to certain restrictions and monitoring, retain constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The decision could impact how law enforcement conducts arrests and searches of individuals violating supervised release conditions. Officers must still demonstrate specific justifications for warrantless searches, even when arresting someone who has violated federal supervision terms.
Johnson's case illustrates the intersection of federal supervision violations and constitutional protections. While supervised release subjects individuals to certain restrictions and monitoring requirements, courts continue to require law enforcement to respect Fourth Amendment boundaries when conducting searches and seizures.
The ruling also reflects ongoing tension between public safety concerns and individual constitutional rights. Law enforcement agencies must balance their responsibility to enforce supervision conditions and protect officer safety with constitutional requirements for reasonable searches and seizures.
Felon in possession of firearm charges carry significant federal penalties, making the constitutional validity of evidence collection crucial in such cases. When courts find that evidence was obtained through unconstitutional searches, defendants may seek suppression of that evidence, potentially undermining prosecution efforts.
The Fifth Circuit's decision reinforces that the protective-sweep exception requires specific, articulable facts suggesting danger, rather than speculative concerns about potential threats. This standard helps ensure that the exception does not swallow the general rule requiring warrants for searches.
The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling. The government may need to reassess its case against Johnson without the firearm evidence if the search is deemed unconstitutional and the evidence suppressed.
This decision joins a growing body of Fifth Circuit precedent defining the boundaries of Fourth Amendment protections during arrests of individuals under federal supervision, providing guidance for both law enforcement and defense attorneys in similar cases.