United States v. Valenzuela

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