IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30078

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

KENYATTA EDMOND,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:18-CR-91-1

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenyatta Edmond conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of firearms 

by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Having reserved his

right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, he contends:

officers’ warrantless search of his vehicle and inquiry regarding weapons on 

his person exceeded the permissible scope of a traffic stop under Terry v. Ohio, 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30078 Document: 00515233499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2019
No. 19-30078

2

392 U.S. 1 (1968); and officers were required to advise him of his rights under 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), prior to their questioning him about 

weapons on his person. 

Regarding a ruling on a motion to suppress, legal conclusions are 

reviewed de novo; factual findings, for clear error. United States v. Robinson, 

741 F.3d 588, 594 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). Denial of the motion is 

affirmed “if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it”. United 

States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

A traffic stop’s legality is examined under Terry’s two-pronged analysis: 

“whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception”; and “whether the 

search or seizure was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that 

justified the stop in the first place”. United States v. Grant, 349 F.3d 192, 196 

(5th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Edmond concedes the traffic stop was 

initially justified because he obstructed the flow of traffic, in violation of 

Louisiana Revised Statutes §§ 14:97(A) and 14:100.1(A). 

Regarding the second prong, the officers knew Edmond had been holding 

a handgun before he exited his vehicle with empty hands. They also could have 

reasonably believed he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; he had lost 

consciousness in an idling vehicle at a major intersection and appeared 

disoriented when he exited the vehicle. Accordingly, it was reasonable to pat 

him down to determine whether that handgun, or another weapon, had been 

secreted on his person.

Because the pat-down of Edmond’s person was reasonably related to the 

safety of the officers and passing traffic, officers were also entitled to conduct 

a “pat-down” of his vehicle. See United States v. Wallen, 388 F.3d 161, 165–66 

(5th Cir. 2004). Edmond’s attempts to distinguish Wallen are unavailing. 

 Case: 19-30078 Document: 00515233499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2019
No. 19-30078

3

Concerning his claim that the officers’ handcuffing him obviated the need for 

a protective sweep, Wallen rejected that claim because the driver may be 

released, return to the vehicle, and have access to a weapon. See id. (citations 

omitted). To the extent Edmond asserts officers had already decided to arrest 

him when his vehicle was searched, which would preclude his returning to his 

vehicle, he provides no factual support for this assertion.

For Edmond’s second claim, incriminating statements made during a 

custodial interrogation, prior to the issuance of the Miranda warnings, are 

generally inadmissible. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608 (2004) (citations 

omitted). There is, however, a public-safety exception to Miranda, allowing

admission of such statements “when a situation posing a threat to the public 

safety exists”. United States v. Lim, 897 F.3d 673, 690 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 852 (2019). The 

officers knew Edmond, who appeared disoriented and possibly intoxicated, had 

previously possessed the handgun, and other vehicles were passing the scene. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-30078 Document: 00515233499 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2019