### 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 1 8 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) . Having reserv ed his right to appeal the district court’s denial of h is motion to suppress , h e 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* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: 12/12/2019No. 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 C ir. 2014) (citation omitted)

. D enial 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 quotati on marks and citation omitted). A t raffic stop’s legality i s examined under Terry ’s two

- pronged analysis : “whether the officer’s action w as 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
L ouisiana Rev ised Stat utes §§ 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, 16 5

– 6 6 (5th Cir. 2004). Edmond’s attempts to distinguish Wallen are unavailing. Case: 19-30078 Document: 00515233499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2019No. 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 E dmond’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 publi c
- 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). T he officer s knew Edmond , who appeared disoriented and possibly intoxicated, had previously possessed the handgun, and o ther vehicles were passing the scene. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-30078 Document: 00515233499 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2019