Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10499 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee

v. B R A N D O N E U G E N E G E T A C H E W , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e N ort h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U S D C N o . 3 :08 -C R -1 6 3 -1
B ef ore K IN G , B A R K S D A L E , an d G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * B randon E ugene G et ac hew pl eade d gui l t y t o po ss es si on w i t h i nt entto di st ribu t e 50 gram s orm ore of coc ai n e, possess i on of a f irearm by a conv i ct ed fel on , an d p osses si on of a f i rearm i n f

u rt h eran ce of

a dru g- t raf

f i cki n g of

fen se. S ee 1 8 U .S .C . § § 9 2 2 , 9 2 4 ; 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 . H e w a s s e n te n c e d , in tera lia , t o 2 11
m on th s’i m p ri son m en t. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Februar y 12, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10499 Document: 00511026198 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010N o. 09- 10499

2 Pu r suant t o hi s c ondi t i onal pl ea agr ee m ent , G et ac hew appeal s t he deni al
o f hi s su pp res s i o n m o t i o n. H e m ai nt ai ns : O f f i c e r s di d no tc o nf

r o nte xi ge nt c i r c um st ance s w hen t hey e nt er ed hi s r es i denc e; t he pr ot ect ive sw ee p w as u n l aw f u l ; an d, t h e di s tric tcourterr ed i n adm i t t i n g a f i rearm i n t o evi den ce un der th e in d e p e n d e n t-s o u r c e d o c tr in e . In revi ew i n g den i alof a sup pressi on m ot i on , f i n di n gs of

factare r evi ew ed fo rc le a re r r o r ; q u e s tio n s o f la w , de no vo . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hearn , 563 F. 3d 95, 1 0 1 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 30 S. Ct
. 2 27 ( 20 09 )
. The fac t s und e r l yi ng t he d e n ia l a r e v ie w e dinth e ligh t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e p r e v a ilin gp a r ty

— in th is in s ta n c e , th e G o v e r n m e n t. Uni t e d S t at e sv. Runya n , 290 F
. 3d223 , 234 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)
. Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s d et erm i n ati on s of exi gen tcircum st an ces an d of suff i ci en td an ger to j u st i f y a protec t ive sw eep are fact u alf i n di n gs revi ew ed f

or c le a re r r o r . E
. g. , Un itedS ta tes v. Troop , 514 F. 3d 405, 409 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (e x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ats on , 273 F
. 3d599 , 6 0 3 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (p r o te c tiv e s w e e p ). Its a p p lic a tio n o f th e in d e p e n d e n t-s o u r c e d o c tr in e is revi ew ed i n t w o parts : it s c on cl u si on t h at th e s u b sequ en t l y- obtai n ed search
w a r r a n tw a s s u p p o r te db yp r o b a b le ca u s e w ith o u t t h e ta in te de v id e n c e is
r e vi e w e d de no vo ; i t s det e r m i nat i o n o f w he t he ra n il l e ga ls e ar c h m o t iva t e d the p r o c u r a l o f th e w a r r a n t is re v ie w e dfo rcle a re r r o r . Uni t e d St at e sv . Has s an , 83 F .3 d6 9 3 , 6 9 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e d i st ri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y err i n f i n di n g exi gen tcircum st an ces. O ff i cers arrive dat G eta ch ew ’ s reside n ce w i th i n m i n u tes of bein g d i sp a tch edto a robbery i n progress. Th ey w ere t ol d a v icti m ha d seen m en i n si de the h ou se w i t h gu n s. Th e O f

f i cers w ere al so t ol d tw o cars f l ed the area, bu tt h ey di d n ot kno w w he t he ro t he rs us pe c t s w e r e s t i l li n t he ho us e . W he n t he O f f i c e r s a r r ive d, t h ey f ou n d G et ach ew bou n d i n f l exi cuffs. A lth o u gh G e ta c h e w co n te n d s th e O ffic e r s s h o u ldh a v e re lie do n h is
s t a t e m e n tt h a t h e d idn o t b e lie v e a n y o n e e ls e w a s inth e h o u s e , o u rco u r t w ill
n o t s e c o n dg u e s s th e O ffic e r s ’ju d g m e n t in co n s id e r in gth e ris k s in v o lv e d
. S ee Case: 09-10499 Document: 00511026198 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2010N o. 09- 10499

3 Un itedS ta tes v. Men ch a ca -C a s tr u ita , 5 8 7 F .3d2 8 3 , 2 9 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). F u r th e r , th e r e s id e n c e ’ s fr o n t d o o r h a d b e e n b r o k e n d o w n ; G e ta c h e w w a s s t ill bound i n f

l exi c uf fs; and, G et ac hew t ol d t he O f f i c er s t hat so m e o f

t he r obbe r s had gon e up t o t h e resi den ce’ s second f l oor. In t h e l i gh t of t h e evi den ce, t h e di st ri ct c o ur tdi d no tc l ear l y e r ri n f i ndi ng i tw as r e as o nab l e f o rO f f i c e r s t o e nt e rt he h o u s e . G et ach ew asser t s t h at th e O f f i cers ’i n i t i alsw eep of hi s r esi den ce w as not cond u ct ed to p rot ectt h e safet y of pol i ce of

f i cers or ot h ers bu tt o di scover evi den ce of a c ri m e. H e concedes t h at hi s s econdcontenti on— t h at th e sw eep w as unl awf

ulb e c aus e itw as no ti nc i de ntt o a r r e s t

— i s f o r e c l o s e d b y o ur p r e c e d e n t. S eeUn itedS ta tes v. G o u ld , 364 F
. 3d578 , 5 8 4 (5 th C ir. 200 4) ( en ban c) (“ [ I] n t h e i n - h om e contextitapp ears c l ear t h at even w ith o u tan arres t o th e rcir c u m s ta n c e s ca n g iv e ris e to e q u a llyre a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n o f e q u a lly
s e r io u s ris ko f d a n g e ro f o ffic e r s b e in ga m b u s h e db yah id d e n p e r s o n . . . .”). “T h e p rotective sw ee p do ctri n e a l l ow s go ve rn m e n t a ge n ts, w i th ou t a
w ar r ant , t o c o nduc taq ui c k a nd l i m i t e d s e ar c h o f pr e m i s e s f o rt he s af

e t y o f t he
a ge n ts a n d oth ers pre sen t a t th e sce n e . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mend ez , 431 F. 3d 420, 42 8 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. As di s c us s e d sup ra , t he O f f i c e r s l awf

ul l y e nt e r e d the resi den ce f

or a l egi t i m ate l aw - en f orcem en tpu rpose, an d they h ada reasonab l e, ar t i c ul abl e s uspi c i on t hatt he ar ea t o b e sw ep t co nt ai ned a pe r so n pos i ng a da ngerto those o n t he s c e ne . W i t h o ne e xc e pt i o n ( a f i r e ar m o bs e rve d i n a k itc h e n d r a w e r), th e p r o te c tiv e s w e e p w a s lim ite dto acu r s o r yin s p e c tio n o f o n ly t ho s e s pa c e s w he r e aperson m ayhi de , a nd the s w e e p was c o nc l ude d o nc e t he
room s i n t h e resi den ce h ad been checked
. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y err in fin d in gs u ffic ie n t d a n g e re x is te dto ju s tifyap r o te c tiv e s w e e p . The O f f i c e r s di d e xc e e d the sc o pe o f t he pr o t e c t ives w e e p b y o pe ni ng t he abov e- ref

erenced k i t chen draw er, t h ereby observin ga fi rearm . Th e di st ri ct court, h ow ever, di d n oterri n deter m i n i n g t h at th e f i rearm w as nev ert h el ess a d m is s ib le u n d e rth e in d e p en d en t- sou r c e e x c e p tio n to th e e x c lu s io n a r yru le
. S ee Case: 09-10499 Document: 00511026198 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/12/2010N o. 09- 10499

4 R uny an , 2 90 F. 3da t2 35
. The O f f i c e r w ho e xe c ut e d t he w ar r antt e s t if i e d: t he
w arran tw as basedon the respond i n g O f f i cers ’ pl ai n - vi ew observati on s of sc al es andm ar ij uanar e s i due , a s w e l la s t he v e r y s t r o ng m ar ij uana odor i n t he
r e s id e n c e . In a d d itio n , th e r e w a s n o r e fe r e n c e to th e fir e a r m in t h e a f f id a v it
s upp o r t i ng t he s e ar c h war r ant
. The G overnm en tt he r e f o r e e s t ab l i s he d: t he O f f i c e r s w o ul d ha ves o ugh taw ar r anti n t he abs e nc e of t he il l e ga ls e ar c h; a nd, th e w a r r a n t w o u lds till h a v e b e e n is s u e db e c a u s e it w a s s u p p o r te db ya m p le p r o b a b le ca u s e . Se ei d. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-10499 Document: 00511026198 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/12/2010