In an opinion written by Justice Stiglich, the Court clarifies whether a protective sweep is lawful when a prior arrest did not occur. The Court looked to other courts to determine if a prior arrest should be a requirement of a protective sweep. The majority approach adopted by courts was that an arrest does not have to occur prior to a protective sweep. This Court agreed with the majority approach and analyzed the lawfulness of the protective sweep in this case. Although the protective sweep in this case occurred before an arrest was made, the Court still found the protective sweep to be unconstitutional because a protective sweep is deemed permissible where there are articulable facts that would support a reasonable belief that the premises harbored a dangerous individual; and the Officers in this case did not testify to having a reasonable belief that the premises harbored a dangerous individual.
Parkes, Kiana, "State of Nevada v. Charles Wade McCall, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 64 (Sep. 22, 2022)" (2022). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1539.