United States v. Villarreal ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50367
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v
JULIA MARIE VILLARREAL
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-01-CR-241-ALL
--------------------
December 3, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Julia Marie Villareal entered a conditional guilty plea to
an indictment charging her with possession with intent to
distribute cocaine. Villareal reserved her right to appeal the
district court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence seized
in a search of her home pursuant to a warrant.
Villareal argues that the search violated the Fourth
Amendment because the officers executing the warrant failed to
*
Pursuant to 5TH 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-50367
-2-
knock and announce their presence prior to breaking down her
door, and she argues for the first time on appeal that the
officers “manufactured” exigent circumstances by executing the
warrant after dark.
“In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must
have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their
presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous
or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation
of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of
evidence.” Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997).
Based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing, we
find no error in the district court’s determination that the
officers executing the warrant reasonably suspected that knocking
and announcing would have placed them in danger and might have
resulted in the destruction of evidence. See United States v.
Orozco, 191 F.3d 578, 581 (5th Cir. 1999); Richards, 520 U.S. at
394. Villareal’s argument that the arresting officers created
exigent circumstances due to their decision when to execute the
warrant fails to establish that the district court plainly erred
in denying the motion to suppress. See United States v.
Maldonado, 42 F.3d 906, 912-13 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.