Page 41 - SEPT OCTOBER 2019_PJ - Final_Neat
P. 41
removed; (3) the possibility of danger to the of our caselaw. In King, police “banged on the
police officers guarding the site of contraband door as loud as [they] could,” but that did not
while a search warrant is sought; (4) the create the exigency. Even though the defendant
information indicating that the possessors of the argued that the officers “demanded” entry, he
contraband are aware that the police are on their couldn’t back that up with any evidence in the
trail; and (5) the ready destructibility of the record. Likewise, Daniels does not point to any
contraband and the knowledge that efforts to evidence in the record that the agents actually
dispose of it and to escape are characteristics in threatened his Fourth Amendment rights. While
which those trafficking in contraband generally the officers here knocked vigorously, the
engage. knocking was relatively brief—around two
minutes —- and the officers did not attempt to
Daniels argues that a “single toilet flush” was not
force entry prior to hearing the toilet flush.
enough to justify entry. If a solitary flush were the
only evidence of exigency in the record, he might The officers did not create the exigency.
be right. But the officers relied on more than just
Daniels fails to meet his burden of showing a
the flush. In fact, they were flush with exigency
Fourth Amendment violation. So the district court
evidence. After he knocked, Agent Greaves could
did not err in denying his motion to suppress.
hear “running throughout the room, running back
and forth like from the right side where the door For the reasons explained above, we AFFIRM
was back to the left side by the window.” He says Daniels’s convictions.
there were times when James’s “voice was real
th
close to the door” and when he “could tell he was U. S. v. Daniels, 5 th Cir., July 10 , 2019.
much further away from the door,” indicating that
James was running back and forth.12 Agent
Greaves had told James he was a police officer, so
SEARCH & SEIZURE VEHICLE SEARCH
he was “aware that the police [were] on [his]
trail.” And Agent Webber testified that it is “not A jury found Walter Glenn guilty of conspiracy,
uncommon for drug dealers to flush narcotics access device fraud, and identity theft for his role
down the toilet.” Combined with the toilet- in a fraudulent check-cashing scheme. The district
flushing sounds, this all reasonably suggests that court denied two motions to suppress evidence
the room’s occupants might have been attempting taken from a rental car that Glenn was driving.
to destroy evidence. The Aguirre factors therefore Glenn contends the district court erred by
suggest that exigent circumstances existed admitting the evidence. He also challenges his
justifying the warrantless search. So, the district sentence. We AFFIRM.
court did not err in finding there was an exigency
In September 2014, Walter Glenn, Larry Walker
to justify the warrantless search. The officers had
and Thomas James were in a rental car, traveling
a full house of evidence, and a full house beats a
through Louisiana on Interstate 10. Glenn was
flush.
driving. Sergeant Donald Dawsey of the West
Now that we know an exigency existed, we must Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s office stopped them
ask whether the officers created the exigency. for what he believed was a traffic violation.
Daniels says the officers’ aggressive conduct Dawsey walked to the vehicle and had Glenn give
made him believe that he was trapped, in violation him his driver’s license and insurance
of the Fourth Amendment, thereby creating the verification. Dawsey immediately noticed a set of
exigency. But the officers acted within the bounds screwdrivers in the door of the vehicle. The
Sept./Oct. 2019 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 37
