[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12195 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cr-00019-RS-LB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH TYRELL DUHON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(January 15, 2013)

Before CARNES, BARKETT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Tyrell Duhon moved to suppress evidence obtained from a search of

his apartment. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Duhon’s 

Case: 12-12195 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 1 of 8 
2

motion. Duhon reserved the right to appeal this decision, which the government 

agreed was dispositive in his case, and Duhon pleaded guilty to: (1) possession of a 

firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i); and (2) possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted 

felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Duhon then appealed 

the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. 

“Because rulings on motions to suppress involve mixed questions of fact and 

law, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error, and its 

application of the law to the facts de novo.” United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 

1256, 1262 (11th Cir. 2000). Further, “all facts are construed in the light most 

favorable to the prevailing party below.” Id.

I. BACKGROUND

Shawndretta Hawkins brought her twenty-two month old nephew to the 

emergency room with life threatening injuries. Shawndretta informed Officer 

Kerry Olson that the child already had the injuries when her sister, Courtney 

Hawkins, left him with Shawndretta. She also explained that Courtney had a 

newborn baby and lived at Edgewood Gardens Apartments with her boyfriend, 

Duhon, known only to Shawndretta as “J.” Officer Olson contacted dispatch and 

asked that officers be sent to Courtney and Duhon’s residence to check on the 

welfare of the newborn baby. 

Case: 12-12195 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 2 of 8 
3

Officers Beaty, Flores, Walker, and Johnson went to the apartment. 

Beforehand, Officer Johnson informed the others that a few weeks earlier he had 

been dispatched to speak with an alleged battery victim. That victim was 

Shawndretta. At that time, Shawndretta told officers that her sister’s boyfriend, 

known to her as “J,” threw her to the ground and tried to choke her outside of his 

apartment at Edgewood Apartments. J also tried to strike one of Shawndretta’s 

children. Shawndretta wrote a victim statement, but because she did not know J’s 

full name and Officer Johnson could not locate J, Officer Johnson could only 

complete a report and put it aside until he got further information. 

When they arrived at the apartment, Officers Johnson and Walker went 

around back and Officers Beaty and Flores went to the front. Officer Beaty 

knocked on the door repeatedly. He heard people inside, but no one answered the

door. After Officer Beaty knocked, Officer Johnson saw the lights in the back of 

apartment go out. The Officers in the front of the apartment were notified. 

Officers Walker then saw a man, Duhon, try to leave the apartment through the 

back window. Officers Johnson and Walker ordered him to show his hands and 

get on the ground. They also ordered him, or the female voice they heard, to open 

the front door. 

Shortly after, Courtney opened the front door with her newborn in her arms. 

Officer Beaty asked, “[w]here is he?” Courtney stepped aside, indicated that “he” 

Case: 12-12195 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 3 of 8 
4

was in the back, Officer Beaty took a step in, saw Duhon, and handcuffed Duhon 

on the floor of the apartment. 

While Duhon was being taken away from the apartment, Sergeant Smith, 

who had arrived as back-up, did a protective sweep of the apartment. He found 

marijuana on top of a bed and a rifle in the bedroom closet. Sergeant Smith 

determined that no one else was in the apartment, so the house was secured and the 

officers waited for a warrant. It is undisputed that the marijuana and rifle, if 

lawfully found, provided probable cause for a warrant. Neither is it disputed that 

the warrant-based search revealed more contraband. 

II. DISCUSSION

Duhon argues that there was neither probable cause nor exigent 

circumstances to support the officers’ warrantless entry into his home and his

arrest. Duhon further argues that because his in-home arrest was unlawful and the 

“officers had no basis to believe anyone else was in the home,” the subsequent 

protective sweep was also unlawful. Without the “fruit” of the unlawful protective 

sweep, there was no probable cause for the search warrant. 

A. THE ARREST

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively 

unreasonable. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1380 

(1980). “[A] warrantless arrest in a home violates the Fourth Amendment unless 

Case: 12-12195 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 4 of 8 
5

the arresting officer had probable cause to make the arrest and either consent to 

enter or exigent circumstances demanding that the officer enter the home without a 

warrant.” Bashir v. Rockdale County, Ga., 445 F.3d 1323, 1328 (11th Cir. 2006).

1. Probable Cause

Probable cause for an arrest exists when an arrest is “objectively reasonable 

based on the totality of the circumstances.” McCormick v. City of Fort 

Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1243 (11th Cir. 2003). “This standard is met when the 

facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge, of which he or she has 

reasonably trustworthy information, would cause a prudent person to believe, 

under the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or 

is about to commit an offense.” Id. “Probable cause requires more than mere 

suspicion, but does not require convincing proof.” Bailey v. Bd. of County 

Comm’rs, 956 F.2d 1112, 1120 (11th Cir. 1992). 

Here, the officers knew that a toddler had been badly abused. They had 

been told that the toddler was injured before Courtney left him with Shawndretta

and that the toddler lived at the residence with Courtney and her boyfriend. They 

also knew that Shawndretta had reported Courtney’s boyfriend for battery on 

herself and attempted battery upon her daughter outside of the same residence. 

Even if this information was not enough for the officers to have probable 

cause to arrest Duhon when they first arrived, probable cause arose once the 

Case: 12-12195 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 5 of 8 
6

officers witnessed Duhon’s behavior at the scene. The officers could tell that there 

were people in the apartment, but when the officers knocked and announced 

themselves no one answered the door. Then, the apartment lights were turned off. 

Finally, Duhon attempted to escape the apartment. See United States v. Herzbrun, 

723 F.2d 773, 778 (11th Cir. 1984) (“Although flight alone will not provide 

probable cause that a crime is being committed, in appropriate circumstances it can 

supply the key ingredient justifying the decision of a law enforcement officer to 

take action.” (quotation marks omitted)). 

2. Exigent Circumstances

The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement recognizes 

that “warrantless entry by criminal law enforcement officials may be legal when 

there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” 

United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331, 1334 (11th Cir. 2002). Underlying the 

exigent circumstances exception is the notion that “[o]nce presented with an 

emergency situation, the police must act quickly, based on hurried and incomplete 

information.” Id. at 1339. Officers’ actions, therefore, “should be evaluated by 

reference to the circumstances then confronting the officer, including the need for a 

prompt assessment of sometimes ambiguous information concerning potentially 

serious consequences.” Id. Based on all of the circumstances confronting the 

officers at the residence here, the police were reasonable to believe that an 

Case: 12-12195 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 6 of 8 
7

emergency situation justified a warrantless entry. The absence of any of the 

following could have led to a different result.

The officers were at the residence because a young child had been violently 

abused, a very serious offense. They had reason to believe that child was abused 

by either his mother or the mother’s boyfriend, both of whom lived at the

residence. The officers were also concerned about the safety of a newborn baby 

living there. Before going to the apartment, the officers learned that the mother’s 

boyfriend was potentially violent, because there was an open battery investigation 

against him based on a separate incident. 

Once at the house, the unique circumstances also contributed to the sense of 

emergency. It was late at night. There were a number of people in the house, who 

were moving around. When the officers repeatedly knocked and announced 

themselves no one came to the door, but the lights were turned out. The officers 

became increasingly concerned about their safety and the safety of the people 

inside the house. Significantly, Duhon tried to escape the house through a 

window. Although the officers prevented Duhon from escaping, he was still 

roaming around inside the home and presented a potential danger to the officers 

and others. Based on these circumstances, taken as a whole, the warrantless entry 

into the apartment was not unreasonable. 

Case: 12-12195 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 7 of 8 
8

B. THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP

“A ‘protective sweep’ is a quick and limited search of premises, incident to 

an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or others.” 

Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 1094 (1990). A protective 

sweep is permitted “in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching 

officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the 

area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest 

scene.” Id. at 337, 110 S. Ct. 1099-1100. 

As set out above, the protective sweep of Duhon’s home was conducted in 

conjunction with a lawful in-home arrest. In light of the circumstances facing the 

officers at the time of Duhon’s arrest, the protective sweep was lawful. During the 

protective sweep the officers found a firearm and marijuana, which gave probable 

cause to support the search warrant. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-12195 Date Filed: 01/15/2013 Page: 8 of 8