[PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES C OURT OF APPEALS FOR T HE ELE VENTH C IRC UIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ No. 1 1-1055 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C . Doc ke t No . 2: 07-c r-00058 -JES-DNF-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AME RIC A , Pla int iff-Appe lle e,

ve rsus RIC HARD M. FRANK

LIN, De fend ant-Appe lla nt.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe alfrom

theUni te d Sta

te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Mi ddl e Dist

ric t of Fl orida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Sept em be r 7, 20 12) Be fore DU BINA, Ch ie f Judg e, JOR DAN a nd AL ARC ÓN, Ci rcui t Ju dge s. *

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation. Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 1 of 18ALAR CÓN , C irc uit Judge : Ri ch ard Frankl in h as a

ppe al ed from thedis tric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny inghis m oti on t o su

ppre ss fi rea

rm s se iz ed

from wit hin his res ide nc e follo winghis arrest out sid e the hou se pursu ant t o a wa rrant for ab sc ondi ng from

his c ondi tio na l re le as e on p arol e. He wa s in dic te d on thre e co unt s th at

c ha rged him wit h tw o c ount s of be inga fel on i n po sse ssi on o f firea rm s in vio latio n of 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g)(1) a nd 924(e ), on s ep arate da

te s, a nd o ne c ount

of pos se ssi ng a

firea rm not reg ist ere d to him in vio latio n of 26 U.S.C . §§ 5861 (d) an d 58 71. Frankl in c ont en ds t

ha t t he dis tric t c ourt e rred i n c onc lud ingtha t t he warrant le ss e ntry

of hi s re sid en ce did

not vio late theFourth Am en dm ent be ca use the e vid en ce sho we d th at

proba ble c au se e xis te d th at

il le ga lly pos se sse d fire arm s we re i n th e res ide nc e an d th at e xig ent c irc um sta

nc es jus tifi ed

an e ntry wit hout obt ai nin g a

se arc h wa

rrant . W e ag ree wit

h th e dis tric t c ourt t

hat t he offic er’ s c ondu ct

did not vio la te the Fourth Am en dm ent a

nd a ffirm . I

A The foll owin g e vid en ce wa s pre se nte d at a he ari ng c ondu ct ed

by the m ag ist rat e judgereg ardi ng t

he va lid ity

of th e warrant le ss s ea

rch of Frank lin ’s

2 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 2 of 18res ide nc e. Afte r se rvinga te rm of im priso nm ent i n a

Florid a sta

te pris on, follo winghis c onvi ction

for burgl ary

a nd g rand the ft, Frankli n wa s gra

nte d co ndi tio na l re le as e of therem ai nde r of his se nte nc e on Ap ril 2 9, 20 06. The le ngt h of his c ondi tio na l re le as e wa s se t t o e xpi re o n Ju ly 16, 2006 . Proba

tio n Spe ci al ist W ill iam La lly (“ Office r Lal ly ”) b eg an

sup ervi sin g Frankli n on

Ma y 2, 2 006. Frankl in w as inform ed

of th e co ndi tio ns o f his rel ea seby Offic er La lly

on t hat date . Frankli n wa s in struc te d th at , a s a c ondi tio n of hi s re le as e, he wa s re qui red to al low Office r Lal ly

to se arc h hi s pe rson, prope rty , a nd p remise s. On Ju ne 23, 2006 , Franklin

te lephon ed

Offic e La lly . Fran

kli n st at ed

tha t t he offic er c oul d lo ok for h im but he woul d no t fin d hi m . He a lso a dmitt ed tha t heha d not foll owe d Offic er La lly ’s ins truc tio n to rep ort for a drug t es t be ca

use he ha d use d a nd wa s in pos se ssi on o f m ari

jua na . Frankli n st at ed

furthe r that “ if he ha d a gun he woul d st ic k it

in his m out

h a nd e nd i t a ll. ” Office r Lal ly

sub m itt ed

a rep ort t o th e Florid a Parol e Co m m iss ion on t he sam e date se tti ng fort

h se ve ralvio latio ns o f the te rm s of Frankl in’ s c ondi tio na l rel ea se . TheParol e Co m

miss ion iss ue d a wa rrant for Frank lin ’s arrest

tha t da y . Office r Lal ly

atte m pte d to loc at e Frankl in s ev era l t im es wit hout suc ce ss. He rec ei ve d in form at ion

in Augu st 2 006 that Fran kli n wa s re sid ingat hi s fia nc é e’ s hom e in Fort

My ers , Flori da . Offic er La lly we nt t o th is l oc ation

se ve ralti m es but

3 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 3 of 18did

not se e any ve hic le s th ere . On Au gust

24, 2006 , Offic er La lly

obs erve d tw o ve hic le s in thedrive way

at ap proxi m at el y

10: 30 at ni ght . He drove a round the blo ck

and o n hi s re turn h e sa

w a thi rd c ar t

he re. The li ght s we re o n in thefront roo m

of th e hous e. Office r Lal ly

c al le d th e Le e Co unt

y She riff’s Offic e an d re que ste d ba ck up as sis ta nc e. Deput

y She riff Jamie Thorp e, De put y Mi ch ae l Ha igi s a

nd t wo ot he r offic ers res pond ed

to Office r Lal ly ’s req

ue st. Afte r the y

arrive d, Offic er La lly knoc ke d on

thedoo r loud ly

se ve ralti m es . He rec ei ve d no res pons e. Offic er La lly show ed De put y Ha igi s a pho tog raph

of Frankli n a

nd a ske d hi m

to go t o th e ba ck

of the hou se . The re, D ep uty Ha igi s ob se rved

Frank lin throu gh a

rea r wind ow. H e al so s awse ve ralfirea

rm s in pla in v ie w. Deput

y Ha igi s re porte d hi s ob se rvat ion s to Office r Lal ly . Offic er La lly the n kn oc ke d on

thedoo r for ap proxi m at ely te n or fifte en m inu te s. Office r Lal ly

a lso te le phon ed

Frank lin se ve ralti m es usi ng h is c el l ph one num be r. At fi rst, s om eo ne a

nswe red the te le phon e an d th en im m ed iate ly hun g it up. Afte r a n

um be r of at te m pts , Franklin

res pond ed

to the te le phon e ca ll. Offic er La lly rec ogni ze d hi s vo ic e. Offic er La lly tol d Frankli n th at

theoffic ers we re n ot goi ng t o le av e an d th at

a SWAT te am

wa s on thewa y be ca use thi s wa s be ing tre at ed a s a ba rrica de d gu

nm an sit uatio n. Offic er La lly

tol d Frankli n th e onl y

sa fe

4 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 4 of 18way

to res olv e thi s si tua

tio n wa s to c om e out

thedoo r in b oxe r short s, wi th h is ha nds rai se d. Aft er s ev era l minute s, Frankl in c am e out thefront d oor wi th h is ha nds rai se d. He wa s ta

ke n into c ust ody

and p la ce d in

a pol ic e ca r. Office r Lal ly

te sti fie d th at , a fte r Frankl in w as arrest ed , he e nte red the hou se out of a c onc ern for the sa fet

y of th e offic ers sin ce Frank lin wa s a c onvi ct ed

fel on an d th ere we re o the r pe rsons and fire arm s in thehou se . Two a dul ts a

nd a c hil d we re i n th e hous e whe n he e nte red. Upo n e nte ring t he res ide nc e, he se iz ed

five we ap ons: three rifle s, a

nd t wo sa we d off sh otguns. Office r Lal ly

te sti fie d th at

his e ntry int o th e res ide nc e wa s “ a co m bin at ion of m y pos iti on a s th e offend er’ s pa role offic er a

nd o ffice r’s sa fet

y , se cu ring t hose we ap ons. ” Offic er La lly

sub m itt ed

a rep ort t o th e Parol e Co m m iss ion ba se d on the fac t t hat Frankli n wa s foun d in a hou se tha

t c ont ai ne d il le ga l we ap ons, inc lud ing sa we d off sh otguns. B On M ay 9, 2 007, a

grand j ury

ret urne d a n in dic tm ent i n th e Unit ed State s Dist ric t C ourt fo r the Mi ddl e Dist ric t of Fl orida

in whic h it

c ha rged Frank lin wit h thre e co unt s of i lle ga lly

pos se ssi ng fire arm s. On Ma rch 1, 20 10, Fra

nkl in fi le d a m oti on t o su

ppre ss t he firea rm s se iz ed

by Offic er La lly

a fte r ente ring Fra

nkl in’ s res ide nc e follo winghis arrest out sid e the hou se . He argue d th at thefirea rm s a nd

5 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 5 of 18his sta

te m ents t o th e offic ers foll owin g hi s a rrest we re i na dm iss ibl e be ca

use the y we re o bta ine d in

vio latio n of t

he Fourth Am en dm ent wi tho ut a se arc h wa

rrant or his c onse nt, an d in

thea bse nc e of fac ts d em onst

rat ingproba

blec au se to ente r the res ide nc e ba se d on

e xig ent c irc um sta

nc es . The Gove rnm ent fil ed

a res pons e to t

he m oti on t o su

ppre ss i n whi ch

it as se rte d th at

thec ha lle nge d e vid en ce wa s a dm iss ibl e on d isc ret e ground s. It as se rte d th at

thee vid en ce wa s a dm iss ibl e be ca use Frank lin

ha d c onse nte d to warrant le ss s ea

rche s of h is re sid en ce in sig nin g hi s C ert ific at e of C ondi tio na l Re le as e an d Te rm s a

nd C ondi tio ns o f Supe rvisi on. The Gove rnm ent a lso co nte nde d th at

thee ntry of th e res ide nc e wa s la

wful b ec au setheoffic ers ha d rea sona ble sus pic ion

to se arc h Frankli n’ s re sid en ce whe n th ey sa w fire arm s in

the din ingroom

throu gh a

win dow. The Gove rnm ent a rgue d th at “ [t] he offic ers a lso ha d a right to ente r the res ide nc e for offic er s afe ty . . . .” Afte r co nsi de ring t

he te sti m ony

pre se nte d a

t t he e vid entia

ry he ari ng, t

he m ag ist rat e judgerec om

m en de d th at

them oti on t o su

ppre ss b e grante d. Th e m ag ist rat e judgec onc lud ed

tha t Fran kli n wa s no lon ge r on c ondi tio na l re le as e on Augu st 2 4, 20 06, b ec au se thete rm inatio n date wa s Ju ly 16, 2006 . Ac co rding ly , the m ag ist

rat e jud ge de te rm ine d th at thec ondi tio n th at

Frank lin wa s re qui red to submit to a

se arc h of hi s prop ert

y wa s no lon ge r in e ffec t on tha t da te . He a lso

6 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 6 of 18rej ec te d th e Gove rnm ent’ s a rgum ent t hat t he e xpi rat ion

of th e te rm

of c ondi tio na l rel ea se wa s to lle d by

theiss ua nc e of thearrest

wa rrant on J une23, 2006 be ca

use of Frankl in’ s vi olatio ns o f the c ondi tio ns o f his rel ea se . Them ag ist rat e jud ge he ld that Flo rida ’s pa

rolela ws do not provi de for the tol lin g of a c ondi tio na l re le as e date . The m ag ist

rat e jud ge rej ec te d th e Gove rnm ent’ s c ont entio n th at thegoo d fai th e xc ep tio n to thee xc lus ion ary rule , se t forth

in United Sta te s v . Leo n , 468 U.S. 897 (1984), an d He rring v . Uni te d St ate s , 555 U.S. 13 5 (200 9), wa s a ppl ic ab le . He rea sone d th at

Offic er La lly

wa s no t misl ed

in his be lie f that hewa s a uth oriz ed to co nduc t a wa rrant le ss s ea

rch sin ce “ the te rm inatio n date [of his c ondi tio na l re le as e] wa s c le ar o n th e fac e of theCo ndi tio ns o f Supe rvisi on.” The m ag ist rat e judge expres sly found tha t hi s be lie f “ wa s no t grou nde d in goo d fa ith .” The m ag ist

rat e jud ge rej ec te d th e Gove rnm ent’ s c ont entio n th at Offic er La lly ha d th e autho rity

to ente r the res ide nc e to s ei ze thefirea rm s to a ssu

re h is o wn sa fet y and t hat of t he oth er o ffice rs who we re p res ent. T he m ag ist rat e jud ge expres sly found tha t Offic er La lly ’s sa fet

y m oti vatio n te sti m ony

wa s no t c redible . II A Afte r revi ew ingthefindi ngs an d re co m m en da tio n of t he m ag ist rat e jud ge , 7 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 7 of 18the dis tric t c ourt d en ie d Frankli n’ s m oti on t o su ppre ss o n Ju

ne22, 2010 . The dis tric t c ourt agree d wi th t he m ag ist rat e jud ge ’s findi ng t

hat Offic er La lly

la ck ed cre dib ili ty

in te sti fy ingtha

t hee nte red the res ide nc e be ca use he be lie ve d th at

the pe rsons rem ai nin g in

theres ide nc e pose d a

da nge r to t he offic ers . Thedis tric t co urt s tate d th at

whi le it “ ac cepts and a dopt s th e Re co m m en de d De ci sio n on Mot ion to Suppre ss as t

o th e iss ue

s it add re sse s , th e Co urt fin ds t

he re wa s suffic ie nt p roba

ble c au se and e xig ent c irc um sta nc es to jus tify

thee ntry of th e res ide nc e an d se izure of thefirea rm s . . . .” United

Sta te s v . Fra nk

lin , 721 F. Supp. 2d 1 229, 123 1 (M. D. Fla . 201 0) (em pha sis a dde d). The dis tric t c ourt a ck

nowl ed ge d th at

theGove rnm ent di d no t a rgue in its res pons e to t

he m oti on t o su

ppre ss o r in i ts a

rgum ent t o th e m ag ist

rat e jud ge tha

t ex ige nt c irc um sta

nc es a uth oriz ed thee ntry int o th e res ide nc e to s ei ze thefirea rm s, but non et he le ss e xe rci se d it s di sc ret ion to co nsi de r the iss ue . It c onc lud ed tha t t he ev ide nc e wa s su ffici ent t o de m onst rat e that Offic er La lly

ha d prob ab le c au se to be lie ve tha

t i lle ga lly pos se sse d fire arm s we re i n th e res ide nc e be fore h e ente red, ba se d on De put y Ha igi s’ s ob se rvat ion

of th em throu gh a

win dow. The dis tric t co urt a lso found

tha t e xig ent c irc um sta

nc es c om pe lli ng e ntry

wit hout se cu ring a se arc h wa rrant e xis te d be ca

use , “ co nsi de ring t

he re we re o the r pe opl e at the res ide nc e, and at l ea st t

wo c ars in the drive way , und er t he tot al ity of th e

8 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 8 of 18ci rcum sta

nc es , a rea sona ble , e xpe rie nc ed

offic er wo uld

be lie ve tha

t t he e vid en ce m ight bede stroy ed

or rem ove d be fore a

wa rrant c oul d ha ve be en se cu red. ” Id. at 1236 . B as ed

on t his rea soni ng t

he dis tric t c ourt h el d th at

“ [Office r] L al ly ’s e ntry int o th e res ide nc e an d se izure of thefirea rm s wa s prop er.” Id. B Pursua nt t o a ple a ag ree m ent, Frankl in e nte red a ple a of gui lty to Co unt 2 of the indic tm ent wh ic h c ha

rged him wit h be inga c onvi ct ed

fel on i n po sse ssi on o f five firea rm s in vio latio n of 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g)(1) a nd 9 24(e ). Pursua

nt t o Fe d. R. Cri m . P. 11(a)(2), he res erve d hi s rig ht t o a ppe althede nia l of h is moti on t o supp res s. 1 Frankl in fi le d a

ti m ely not ic e of a

ppe al . W e have juri sdi ct ion ove r thi s ap pe alpursu ant t o 28 U.S.C . § 1 291. III A Frankl in c ont en ds t

ha t t he dis tric t c ourt e rred i n de te rm ini ng t ha t t he warrant le ss s ea

rch of his res ide nc e wa s re as ona ble und er t

heFourth Am en dm ent ba se d on theproba ble c au seand e xig ent c irc um sta nc es e xc ep tio n to the In his openingbrief, F ranklin also cla imed that the district court e rre d by sentenc ing 1 him to consecutive ter

ms of imprisonment. This C ourt subsequently issued an orde r grantingthe Gover nment’s motion to dis miss thi s claim bec ause F ranklin had w aived a ll appeals of his sentenc e, except in limited circumstance s that do not apply here , as a c ondition of his plea barg ain. The order limited the appe al to his challeng e to the denia l of his motion t o suppress. 9 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 9 of 18ex clusi ona

ry rule be ca usetheGove rnm ent fa ile d to a sse rt th is a rgum ent be fore t

he m ag ist rat e judge .

“ W e revi ewfor ab use of di sc ret ion thetre at m ent by a dis tric t c ourt o f a repo rt a nd re co m m en datio n of a

m ag ist rat e jud ge .” Ste

phe ns v . Tolb er t , 471 F.3d 1173 , 117 5 (11t

h C ir. 20 06). A dis tric t c ourt d oe s no t a buseit s di sc ret ion

by ac cepti ng a

n a rgum ent no t ra ise d be fore t he m ag ist rat e jud ge . Id. at

117 6-77. In Tolbe rt , th is C ourt h el d th at “ [w]e rej ec t t

he not ion tha t, i n it s re vie w of th e repo rt an d re co m

m en datio n, t

he dis tric t c ourt p erform ed an a ppe lla te func tio n a

nd wa s ba rred, o uts ide of e xc ep tio na l c irc um sta nc es , from

c onsi de ring a

n a rgum ent no t rai se d be fore t

he m ag ist rat e jud ge .” Id. Thedis tric t c ourt d id n ot a buseit s dis cre tio n in

a llo wingtheGove rnm ent t o a rgue in its obj ec tio n to them ag ist rat e jud ge ’s rep ort a

nd re co m m en datio n th at

thee ntry and s ei zu re o f the firea

rm s di d not vio late theFourth Am en dm ent be ca usetherec ord de m onst

rat ed tha t prob ab le ca use and e xig ent c irc um sta nc es jus tifi ed

theoffic er’ s c ondu ct . 2 Even though the district court re sted its denial of F ranklin’s motion to dismi ss on a 2 differ ent leg al basis from those c onsidered by the mag istrate judg e, it was not re quired to conduct a n evidentiar

y hearing be cause it adopted the mag istrate judg e’s f actua l findings a

nd cre dibility

deter mination in full. See U

nited States v. Raddatz , 447 U.S. 667, 673-74 (1980) (holdingthat district court may adopt the credibility

finding s of a mag istrate judg e without rehe aringthe testimony

on which a ma g istrate judg e base d his or her f indings a nd rec ommendations); cf. Amlong &Amlong, P.A. v. D enny’ s Inc. , 500 F.3d 1230, 1250 ( 11th Cir. 2007) (holdingthat a district cour t must hol d a new

hearing in order to rejec t a mag istrate judge ’s cr edibility

finding s unless “thereis an articula ble basis for r ejec ting the ma g istrate’s orig inal resolution of cr edibility .” (inter nal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Marshall , 609 F.2d 152, 155 ( 5th Cir. 1980)). While the leg al issue of whe ther ther e we re 10 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 10 of 18B

Frankl in also a sse rts t

hat t he dis tric t c ourt e rred i n c onc lud ingtha t Offic er La lly did not have a rea sona ble opp ortun ity

to try to obt ai n a

se arc h wa

rrant a fte r Frankl in’ s a

rrest out sid e the res ide nc e “ whil e m ai nta ini ng s afe ty and [a lso ] pres ervi ng t

he e vid en ce .” App el la

nt’ s Ope nin g B rie f at

ii . He c ont en ds t

hat “ [t] he phy sic alnature of th e ev ide nc e, rifle s, a lon e, ne gate s a ny c onsi de rat ion

tha t [su ch ] ev ide nc e co uld

not be pre se rved

whi letry ingto obt ai n a

ny wa rrant (s), and s afe ty wa s ne ve r an

iss ue throu ghout t

he e ve nt i n th is c as e. ” Appe lla nt’ s Ope nin g B rie f at 6.

“ It is a

‘ ba sic princ ipl e of Fourth Am en dm ent l aw ’ tha

t se arc he s a

nd s ei zu res ins ide a hom e wit hout a wa rrant are p res um

pti ve ly unre as ona

ble .” Pay ton v . N

ew York, 445 U.S. 57 3, 58 6 (198 0). “ A wa rrant le ss s ea

rch is a llo we d, ho we ve r, whe re bot h prob ab le c au se and e xig ent c irc um sta nc es e xis t.” Uni te d St

ate s v . Tobi n , 923 F.2d 15 06, 1 510 (11th

Ci r. 1991 ) (en b an c). “ The dis tric t c ourt’ s de nia l of t he m oti on t o su

ppre ss i s re vie we d a s a

m ixe d qu es tio n of l awand fa ct .” Uni te d St ate s v. Bra dle y , 644 F.3d 1 213, 126 1 (11t h C ir. 20 11). “ W e ac cept t he fac ts t hedis tric t exigent cir cumstance s based on a rea sonable be lief that evide nce ma y be destroyed or r emoved was not pre sented be fore the mag istrate judg e, the f acts we re suf

ficiently develope d to support the leg al conc lusions of the district court and ther efor e hea ringfurther

testimony

was unnece ssary . Cf. Gullat te v. Potts , 654 F.2d 1007, 1011- 12 (5th Cir. 1981) (re mandingfor the district court to conduc t an evidentiar y hearing where the mag istrate applied a n improper leg al test and his fac tual finding s were leg ally insufficient to allow the district c ourt to conduct the proper leg al ana ly sis). 11 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 11 of 18co urt fou

nd i n re sol vin g th e ex ige nt c irc um sta nc e iss ue unl es s th e findi ngs are cl ea rly e rroneo us. W e de te rm ine denov o whe the r the c ourt e rred i n a ppl y ingthe la w to tho se fac ts.” Id. (ci tatio n omitt ed). Furthe r, thi s C ourt c onst rues a ll fac ts i n the li ght m ost fav orab le to the pre va ili ng p art y be low. United

Sta te s v . J orda n , 635 F.3d 11 81, 1 185 (11th Ci r. 2011 ) . In th is m at

te r, the Gove rnm ent pre va ile d on the que sti on o f whe the r thee vid en ce wa s su ffici ent t o de m onst rat e that t he re wa s proba blec au se to ente r the res ide nc e to p reve nt t he de struc tio n or re m ova l of t he firea rm s be fore a

se arc h wa

rrant c oul d be obt ai ne d be ca

use oth er p ers ons we re pres ent i nsi de .

“ The que sti on o f what a

m ount s to proba

blec au se is pure ly

a que sti on o f la

w an d he nc e is s ubj ec t t o pl en ary rev ie w by

thi s c ourt. Proba

blec au se e xis ts whe n unde r the tot al ity -of-the -ci rcum sta nc es . . . the re i s a

fai r proba

bil ity tha t co ntra ba nd o r ev ide nc e of a

c rim e wil l befound

in a pa rtic ula r pla ce .” Tobin , 923 F.2d at 15 10 (a lte rat ion

in origi na l) (ci tatio ns a

nd i nte rnalquo tatio n m arks om itt ed). As t

he dis tric t c ourt fo und, the re i s no fac tua l di sput e that t heoffic ers ha d prob ab le c au se . Frankli n wa s kn own t o be a fel on a nd wa s ob se rved

in pla in vie w in thepre se nc e of we ap ons whic h he ha d no right to poss es s a s a

c onvi ct ed fel on.

“ [T]h e ‘p res en ceof c ont raba nd wi tho ut m ore doe s no t gi ve rise to ex ige nt 12 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 12 of 18ci rcum sta

nc es .’ ” Id. (quot ing United Sta te s v . Torres , 705 F.2d 1 287, 129 7 (11t h Ci r.), va ca te d an d re mand ed on o the r ground

s , 718 F.2d 9 98 (11 th C ir. 19 83)).

“ [A]n e xig en cy e xis ts whe n offic ers c an

artic ula te a rea son, groun de d in

thefac ts of thespe ci fic c as e, to fea r that e vid en ce m ay

bede stroy ed

or lo st . . . .” Bra dle

y , 644 F.3d at 12 62. “ An ob je ct ive te st a

ppl ie s to thee xig en cy

de te rm inatio n. An ex ige nc y e xis ts i f ‘t

he fac ts . . . wo uld

le ad a rea sona ble , e xpe rie nc ed

a ge nt t o be lie ve tha

t e vid en ce migh t bede stroy ed be fore a wa rrant c oul d be se cu

red. ’” Id . (em pha sis and a lte rat ion

in origi na l) (quo tin g Tobin , 923 F.2d a t 15 10). W

hil e the que sti on o f whe the r offic ers on t he sc en e co uld

rea sona bly havebe lie ve d th at ev ide nc e woul d bede stroy ed , rem ove d, or h idd en be fore a wa rrant c oul d be obt ai ne d is fac t sp ec ific , th ere is an ana log ous ca sein thi s C irc uit , whi ch is dis posi tiv e of thi s c as e. In United Sta te s v . Rod ge rs , 924 F.2d 2 19, 2 23 (11 th C ir. 19 91), t his Co urt co nc lud ed

tha t e xig ent c irc um sta

nc es we re p res ent wh en

“pol ic e kne w th ere wa s at le as t on e pe rson o the r tha n Rodge rs in

thetra ile r; th e ha

ndgu ns c oul d e as ily

be hid de n or re m ove d; a

nd t he pe opl e in t

he tra ile r were aware o f the arrest of Ro dge rs.” In th is m at

te r, it is u ndi sput ed tha t t he re wa s at l ea st o ne oth er p ers on ins ide theres ide nc e. Therec ord su pport s th e dis tric t c ourt’ s fin din g “ that t his pe rson w as aware o f de fend ant’ s a rrest and h ad c oope rat ed

wit h de fend ant by

not 13 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 13 of 18res pond ingto the offic ers ’ knoc kin g a nd y el lin g at t

he doo r.” Fran klin , 721 F. Supp. 2 d at 12 36. In his rep ly

brie f, Frank lin

argue s th at Rodg

er s is n ot d isp osi tiv e be ca

use rifle s a nd s hot guns are m ore diffic ult to rem ove tha

n ha ndgu ns, a nd t he refore the re wa s a m ple opp ortun ity

to obt ai n a

wa rrant be fore Offic er La lly

se arc he d th e res ide nc e. W e dis ag ree . Thefac t t hat fire arm s in cludi ng a

sho rte ne d rifle and sa we d off sh otguns m ay

bem ore diffic ult

to rem ove or hi dde n is not dis posi tiv e. Bo th t y pe s of we ap ons ca

n be rem ove d by

an a dul t. “ [T]h e ap propria te inq uiry is whe the r the fac ts . . . wo uld le ad a rea sona ble , e xpe rie nc ed

a ge nt t o be lie ve tha

t ev ide nc e m ight bede stroy ed [or rem ove d] be fore a

wa rrant c oul d be se cu

red. ” Rodger s , 924 F.2d at 22 2 (a lte rat ion s in origi na l) (quo tin g United Sta te s v . Riv er a , 825 F.2d 15 2, 15 6 (7th

Ci r. 1987 )). The e vid en ce pre se nte d at t he e vid entia

ry he ari ng b efore them ag ist rat e jud gede m onst

rat es tha t Offic er La lly

a ct ed rea sona bly und er t he c irc um sta

nc es . Unde r thetot al ity

of th e fac ts o f whic h he wa s a ware, h e co uld

haverea sona

bly be lie ve d th at

thefirea rm s wou ld b e rem ove d be fore a wa rrant c oul d be obt ai ne d. The re we re at l ea st t

wo c ars in the drive way

and at l ea st o ne oth er p ers on i n th e res ide nc e who h ad

a lre ad y sho wn t he wil lin gne ss t o he lp Fra nkl in a voi d a rrest by not a nswe ring t

he doo r. Thi s c as e is a

sta rk c ont ras t from c as es whe re t

his Co urt 14 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 14 of 18ha s foun d a

n offic er’ s de te rm inatio n of e xig ent c irc um sta nc es to be unre as ona

ble . Se e Unit ed Sta te s v . Lyn ch , 934 F.2d 1 226, 123 2 (11t h C ir. 19 91) (find ingno ex ige nt c irc um sta

nc e whe n th e arre st w as m ad e aw ay from thesus pe ct ’s hom e); United Sta te s v . Satte rfi el

d, 743 F.2d 8 27, 8 44-45 (11th Ci r. 1984 ) (findin g no ex ige nt c irc um sta

nc e aft er a ll of theoc cu

pa nts we re t ak en

int o c ust ody). The dis tric t c ourt did n ot e rr in c onc lud ingtha t Offic er Lally

ha d prob ab le c au se to be lie ve tha

t t he res ide nc e co nta ine d e vid en ce tha t might behid de n or re m ove d be fore h e co uld

obt ai n a se arc h wa

rrant . IV Frankl in h as sub m itt ed

a “ m oti on t o bo th fi le sup ple m enta l a rgum ent a nd le ga l a uth ority .” W e grant hi s m oti on, b ut d o no t fin d hi s a rgum ents p ers ua siv e. In his m oti on, Fra

nkl in c ont en ds t

hat hi s tri alc ouns elwa s in effe ct ive . Thi s is sue wa s no t pre se nte d to thedis tric t c ourt. He a lso atte m pts to dis tin gui sh Rodger

s , for the first tim e, on t

he groun d th at

Offic er Lally ’s se arc h wa s pre te xtu al . Re ga rdinghis ine ffec tiv e as sis ta nc e of c ouns elc la im , “ [i] t i s se ttl ed la w in thi s c irc uit

tha t a c la im of in effe ct ive a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns elc annot

be c onsi de red on dire ct a ppe alif th e cl ai m s we re n ot fi rst ra ise d be fore t he dis tric t c ourt a

nd i f the re ha s be en no o pport

uni ty to de ve lop a

rec ord of e vid en ce rel ev ant t o th e m eri ts o f the c la im .” United

Sta te s v . Pe re z-Tost a , 36 F.3d 15 52, 1 563 (11th Ci r. 1994 );

15 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 15 of 18ac co rd Un ite d St ate s v . Ve ltrop , 161 F. App’ x 91 4, 91 5 (11t h C ir. 20 06). Re ga rdinghis atte m

pt t o di sti ngui sh Rodger

s on t he groun ds t

hat Offic er La lly ’s se arc h wa s pre te xtu al , th is c ourt g en era lly doe s no t re vie w is sue s no t ra ise d in a n op en ingbrie f. United

Sta te s v . N ea ly , 232 F.3d 8 25, 8 30 (11 th C ir. 20 00). Howe ve r, in e xc ep tio na l c irc um sta nc es , wehave “ ex erc ise [d] our di sc ret ion to rec ogni ze pla in e rror.” Uni te d St ate s v . Gari , 572 F.3d 1 352, 136 0 (11t h C ir. 2009 ) (cit ing Sil

be r v . Uni te d St

ate s , 370 U.S. 71 7, 71 8 (196 2)). For a findi ng o f pla in e rror, “ [t] he re m

ust be an ‘ error’ tha

t i s ‘ pla in’ a

nd t hat ‘ affe ct [s] sub sta

nti al right s.” United

Sta te s v . Ola no , 507 U.S. 72 5, 73 2 (199 3) (se co nd a lte rat ion in origi na l). “ Of co urse , th ere c an be no p la in e rror if the re wa s no e rror at a ll. ” United Sta te s v . Pie lago , 135 F.3d 7 03, 7 09 (11 th C ir. 19 98). Co ntra ry to Frankl in’ s c ont entio n, Rodger s ca nnot be dis tin gui she d on

the ground s of p ret ext. In Rodger s , 924 F.2d a

t 22 1, t he offic er d id n ot n ee d a

pre te xt to g o to thedoo r of thetra ile r be ca use he ha d e ve ry

right to be the re. Sim ila

rly in thi s c as e, De put

y Ha igi s a lso ha d e ve ry

right to be be hin d th e res ide nc e, and d id not a ct und er a ny pre te xt. Frank lin

a lso c ont en ds t

hat Offic er La lly ’s se arc h wa s pret extua l ba se d on

thefindi ng m ad e by

them ag ist

rat e jud ge , a

nd a dopt ed

by the dis tric t c ourt, that Offic er La lly ’s sta te d inte nt i n e nte ring t

heres ide nc e for offic er sa fet y c onc erns wa s no t c redible . Offic er La lly ’s sub je ctive int ent i s in ap posi te , 16 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 16 of 18howe ve r, be ca use thete sts for an al yzi ng p roba ble c au seand e xig ent c irc um sta nc es are obj ec tiv e. Brad

le y , 644 F.3d a

t 12 62 (“ An ob

je ctive te st a

ppl ie s to the ex ige nc y de te rm ina

tio n. An e xig en cy e xis ts i f ‘t

he fac ts . . . wo uld

le ad a rea sona ble , e xpe rie nc ed

a ge nt t o be lie ve tha

t e vid en ce migh t bede stroy ed be fore a warrant c oul d be se cu

red. ’” ) (em

pha sis and a lte rat ion

in origi na l) (quo tin g Tobin , 923 F.2d at 15 10)); Cr

aig v . Si nglet ary , 127 F.3d 1 030, 104 2 (11t h C ir. 19 97) (“ Probab le c au seiss ue s a re t o be de ci de d on

an ob je ct ive ba sis by

c ourts wit

hout rega rd to the sub

je ct ive be lie fs of la

w e nforce m ent offic ers , wha te ve r thos e be lie fs m ay have be en .” ). B ec au se the re wa s no e rror at a ll, we de cl ine to ex erc ise our dis cre tio n to find pla in e rror. V W e are pe rsua de d th at

a rea sona ble , e xpe rie nc ed

offic er wo uld

have co nc lud ed

und er t he tot al ity of th e ci rcum sta

nc es tha t t he firea rm s might be rem ove d or c onc ea le d be fore a wa rrant c oul d be obt ai ne d to e nte r the res ide nc e. In light o f thi s c onc lus ion , we de cl ine to rea ch theGove rnm ent’ s a lte rnat e co nte nti on that Offic er La lly

wa s e nti tle d to e nte r Frankl in’ s re sid en ce ba se d on his c onse nt t o be se arc h a s a

c ondi tio n of hi s su

pe rvise d re le as e, be ca

use thee xpi rat ion

date of his c ondi tio na l re le as e ha d be en tol le d whe n Frankli n a

bsc onde d from

sup ervi sio n. W e grant hi s m oti on t o fil e supp le m enta l a rgum ent a nd l eg ala uth ority . 17 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 17 of 18AFFIRM ED.

18 Case: 11-10555 Date Filed: 09/07/2012 Page: 18 of 18