Court Opinion

ID: 9396469
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 18:00:49.297052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.251807
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50617        Document: 00516758263             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/22/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-50617
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 22, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Hector Gastelum Valenzuela,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:21-CR-146-3
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Following a stipulated bench trial, Hector Gastelum Valenzuela was
   convicted of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual
   methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846.
   Valenzuela appeals the district court’s denial of his pre-trial motion to
   suppress evidence seized from a motel room, asserting the evidence was

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50617      Document: 00516758263          Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/22/2023

                                    No. 22-50617

   obtained by an improper protective sweep in violation of the Fourth
   Amendment. He claims the protective sweep of the motel room was illegal
   because: no exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless entry
   into the room; and it exceeded the scope of a proper protective sweep.
          When reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, our court reviews
   “factual findings for clear error and the ultimate constitutionality of law
   enforcement action de novo”. United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 594
   (5th Cir. 2014). Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
   prevailing party, here, the Government. E.g., United States v. Thomas, 997
   F.3d 603, 609 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 828 (2022). “Where a
   district court’s denial of a suppression motion is based on live oral testimony,
   the clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong because the judge had
   the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.” United States v.
   Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
          For the following reasons, the officers’ conduct in proceeding to the
   motel and proceeding to the specific room prior to obtaining a warrant was
   not unreasonable. E.g., Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459, 462, 466–68
   (2011) (“[B]ecause the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is
   reasonableness . . . the warrant requirement is subject to certain
   reasonableness exceptions”. (citation omitted)).
          The officers: knew Juvencio Camargo-Garcia, a co-conspirator, had
   distributed methamphetamine at the motel that day; watched Camargo leave
   the motel; and found in his pocket the key for the motel room at issue. The
   officers suspected that someone was in the room when they tried the key and
   saw that it was locked from the inside (on finding the door locked from the
   inside, the officers observed Valenzuela and ordered him to come outside);
   and they believed there was a possibility of danger to the officers because they
   thought that there might be a gun in the room on account of their observing

                                          2
Case: 22-50617      Document: 00516758263          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/22/2023

                                    No. 22-50617

   Camargo’s wearing an empty holster. From the doorway, the officers were
   unable to ascertain whether anyone else was in the room who might attempt
   to destroy the evidence before a search warrant was obtained.
           Again, these circumstances created exigency that justified a
   warrantless entry into the room. E.g., United States v. Silva, 865 F.3d 238,
   242 (5th Cir. 2017) (providing officers’ concern for safety was reasonable
   and justified warrantless protective sweep); United States v. Jones, 239 F.3d
   716, 720–22 (5th Cir. 2001) (“The possibility that evidence will be removed
   or destroyed, the pursuit of a suspect, and immediate safety risks to officers
   and others are exigent circumstances that may excuse an otherwise
   unconstitutional intrusion into a residence.”).
           Moreover, the record supports a finding that the protective sweep was
   properly limited in scope as the officers were lawfully inside the room to
   sweep for safety and to prevent the destruction of evidence; and, during that
   sweep, the officers saw drugs in plain view. E.g., United States v. Garcia-
   Lopez, 809 F.3d 834, 839 (5th Cir. 2016) (“[E]vidence or contraband seen in
   plain view during a lawful sweep can be seized and used in evidence at
   trial”.).
           AFFIRMED.

                                         3