United States v. Valdez , 88 F. App'x 785 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 19, 2004
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Charles R. Fulbruge III
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
_________________________
No. 03-10766
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID VALDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
______________________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
(2:02-CR-00074-ALL)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1
We review David Valdez’s conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute methamphetamine. Valdez argues that evidence seized during the search of his home
and statements made thereafter should be suppressed because the officers’ failure to knock and
announce their presence prior to entering his home was not justified by exigent circumstances.
1
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.
-1-
We hold that the district court did not err in determining that officers in this case had a
reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing would likely result in violence or the
destruction of evidence, which justified their decision based upon the following articulated facts:
(1) Valdez’s home was occupied by Delissa and Christopher Valdez, who were both on felony
probation, under federal indictment for federal drug offenses, and previously found to be in
possession of a firearm during a search of their residence three weeks prior to the execution of the
warrant at issue; (2) Delissa Valdez also had a prior arrest for possession of a firearm; (3)
surveillance of David Valdez’s home the night before the search at issue revealed behavior
indicative of drug trafficking; (4) a confidential informant indicated the man in control of the
premises was in possession of a large amount of methamphetamine; and (5) methamphetamine
users are typically more violent than users of other illegal drugs. See Richards v. Wisconsin, 520
U.S. 385, 387 (1997); United States v. Banks, 124 S. Ct. 521, 525 (2003). For the foregoing
reasons, we uphold the conviction.
-2-