Opinion ID: 65023
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exigent circumstances to enter room 923

Text: As mentioned, the testimony concerning whether Mrs. Hammond consented to the officers' initial entry into room 923 is conflicting and the district court did not make a fact finding on this issue. We need not delve into this conflict, however, because the district court correctly held that Mrs. Hammond's decision to open the door to room 923 created exigent circumstances justifying the officers' warrantless entry. A district court's finding of exigent circumstances constitutes a factual finding reviewed only for clear error. United States v. Howard, 106 F.3d 70, 74 (5th Cir.1997). Exigent circumstances are generally found where there is a risk to the safety of law enforcement or innocent bystanders, or that evidence might be destroyed. United States v. Blount, 123 F.3d 831, 837 (5th Cir.1997). In United States v. Rico, this Court identified a non-exhaustive list of factors that bear on the exigency analysis: (1) the degree of urgency involved and amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant; (2) [the] reasonable belief that contraband is about to be removed; (3) the possibility of danger to the police officers guarding the site of contraband while a search warrant is sought; (4) information indicating the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail; and (5) the ready destructibility of the contraband and the knowledge that efforts to dispose of narcotics and to escape are characteristic behavior of persons engaged in the narcotics traffic. 51 F.3d 495, 501 (1995) (citation omitted). When evaluating the existence of exigency, this Court considers the appearance of the scene of the search in the circumstances presented as it would appear to reasonable and prudent men standing in the shoes of the officers. United States v. Rodea, 102 F.3d 1401, 1405 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Our focus is on the totality of the circumstances leading up to the challenged entry or search rather than on the isolated actions of law enforcement. Howard, 106 F.3d at 74. If reasonable minds could differ, we will not second-guess the judgment of experienced law enforcement officers concerning the risks of a particular situation. Blount, 123 F.3d at 838. The district court found that, when the officers arrested Hammond and Nichols in the hallway outside of room 923, Mrs. Hammond opened the door to room 923 to see what the commotion was. At this point, the officers already had evidence linking Hammond and Nichols to Lora (an individual that Blanton had identified as his methamphetamine source), and to the drug activities that had transpired in room 940. Because Hammond was attempting to enter room 923, it was reasonable for the officers to assume that it was Hammond's room or one of his accomplice's. Although the officers had no particular knowledge that weapons were located in room 923, fear for officer safety may be reasonable during drug arrests, even in the absence of any particularized knowledge of the presence of weapons, because in drug deals it is not uncommon for traffickers to carry weapons. United States v. Maldonado, 472 F.3d 388, 394 (5th Cir.2006) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Finally, the officers had no idea who the individual opening the door to room 923 was, or whether that individual intended the officers harm. Under these circumstances, exigency justifying the officers' protective sweep of room 923 existed on two grounds: (1) that the individual opening the door to room 923 might be armed; and (2) that the individual, upon seeing the officers, might attempt to dispose of any drugs contained in room 923.