United States v. Vazquez

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 25, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-11089
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HECTOR VAZQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-156-3
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hector Vazquez appeals from his conviction of being a felon
in possession of a firearm. He contends that the firearm on
which his conviction was based was not seized during a
permissible protective sweep of the type authorized by Maryland
v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990).
Vazquez was arrested inside one half of a duplex located at
5417 Lindsley in Dallas. The firearm was seized from an armoire
in Vazquez’s bedroom, in the other half of the duplex, at 5419
Lindsley. The arresting officers had warrants for the arrest of
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-11089
-2-
Vazquez and Fidel Aguilera, who listed the duplex as his home
address. Both halves of the duplex were owned by Vazquez’s
parents, who were on the front porch during Vazquez’s arrest.
Vazqeuz led officers on a chase through both halves of the
duplex. After he was apprehended and read his rights, one of the
arresting officers asked Vazquez whether there were any weapons
present, and Vazquez directed him to the firearm in the armoire.
We do not determine whether the Buie protective sweep
rationale applies to Vazquez’s case. In light of the possibility
that Aguilera might be hiding in the duplex, Vazquez telling the
officer of the exact location of the firearm gave rise to an
exigent circumstance of potential danger sufficient to justify
the arresting officer’s search for, and seizure of, the firearm.
See United States v. Shannon, 21 F.3d 77, 81-82 (5th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Richard, 994 F.2d 244, 247-48 (5th Cir. 1993).
On the findings of the district court, the officer acted
reasonably in seizing the weapon specifically identified by
Vazquez.
AFFIRMED.