Download presentation
1 -

PUBLISHEDUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


4025UNITED STATES OF AMERICAPlaintiff RODRIGO BUSTAMANTEMARTINEZDefendant AppellantAppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North CarolinaLouise W Flanagan District Jud

faith's Recent Documents

Mathematics
Mathematics

3-51North Carolina Standard Course of StudyThirdGrade Mathematics Standards for Mathematical Practice1Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them2Reason abstractly and quantitatively3Construc

published 2K
Investors
Investors

Jonathan Doros 18172393457jonathandorosjacobscomMediaKerrie Sparks 12145838433kerriesparksjacobscomHeadquarters1999 Bryan Street Ste 1200Dallas TX 75201 USA 12145838500Career opportunitieswwwjacobscom

published 0K
PERIODONTAL DISEASE
PERIODONTAL DISEASE

Perio means around dontal means toothPeriodontal disease is disease around the outside of the toothThe Tooth the Whole Tooth and Nothing but the ToothIn this picture we see the crown of the tooth the

published 1K
June 2 2021US Department of the TreasuryEmergency Rental Assistance Fa
June 2 2021US Department of the TreasuryEmergency Rental Assistance Fa

such services themselves should be engaging partners with the capacity to do so to ensure equal access to emergency rental assistance for all eligible households Provide a streamlined payment option

published 2K
PUBLISHEDUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISHEDUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

4025UNITED STATES OF AMERICAPlaintiff RODRIGO BUSTAMANTEMARTINEZDefendant AppellantAppeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North CarolinaLouise W Flanagan District Jud

published 0K
CHOLARSHIP IN
CHOLARSHIP IN

BROMMEL-LINDBERGSHISTORYRichard LindbergNortheastern Illinois Universitys1997 Distinguished Alumnus of the Year is a noted and prolific author who has published 17 books Primarily an editor and histor

published 0K
New tools for
New tools for

Monitoring Reporting and Verification in rice productionDr BjrnOle SanderIRRIWebinar agendaTime ContentPresenter0-10min Welcome and IntroductionGRA PRRG Co-chairs10-17minOverview of new toolsIntroduct

published 0K
TECHNOLOGY MEDIA  TELECOM
TECHNOLOGY MEDIA TELECOM

PAGE 0SUPPLY CHAIN AND LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY SECTOR REVIEW 1Q 2020Technology Media TelecomIndustrial Software Sector Review 2Q 2020HW Industrial Software IntroductionSELECT HW INDUSTRIAL SOFTWARE

published 0K
Download Section

Download - The PPT/PDF document "" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.






Document on Subject : "PUBLISHEDUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT"— Transcript:

1 PUBLISHEDUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSF
PUBLISHEDUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 4025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICAPlaintiff RODRIGO BUSTAMANTEMARTINEZDefendant Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North CarolinaLouise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (cr00103FL SubmittedAugust 14, 2017Decided: September 26, 2017 Before TRAXLER, and DIAZ,Circuit Judges. Affirmedby published per curiam opinion Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. ��2 &#x/MCI; 0 ;&#x/MCI; 0 ;PER CURIAM:A jury convicted Rodrigo BustamanteMartinez of unlawfully possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§922(g)(5)(A), 924(a)(2) (2012). On appeal, BustamanteMartinez appeals the district court’s pretrial order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying his motion to suppress. Finding no error, waffirm.In reviewing a district court’s “denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s legal determinations de novofactualconclusions for clear error.” United States v. Shrader, 675 F.3d 300,

2 306 (4th Cir. 2012). “Because the
306 (4th Cir. 2012). “Because the district court denied the defendant’s motion, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.” The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. “[S]earches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).“Under the emergency aid exception, . . . officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.” at 460 (internal quotation marks omitted). Such a search will be found reasonable “as long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action.” Brigham City, 547 U.S. 398, 404 (2006) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “Officers do not need ironclad proof of a likely serious, lifeinjury to invoke the emergency aid exception.” Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 49 (2009) (per curiam)(internal quotation marks omitted). “The role of a peace officer includes ��3 &#x/MCI; 0 ;&#x/MCI; 0 ;preventing violence and restoring order, not simply rendering first aid to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or hockey) referee, poised to stop a bout only ifit becom

3 es sided.” Brigham City, 547 U.S.
es sided.” Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 406. In determining whether an exigency justifies a warrantless search, regardless of the type of exigency, we consider(1) the degree of urgency involved and the amount of time necessary to warrant; (2) the officers’ reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed or destroyed; (3) the possibility of danger to police guarding the site; (4) information indicating the possessorof the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail; and (5) the ready destructibilityof the contraband.United States v. Yengel, 711 F.3d 392, 397 (4th Cir. 2013).We conclude that the district court correctly applied the emergency aid exception in this case. BustamanteMartinez’s daughter called 911 to report that he had been possesseda firearm, and that there had been an altercation. Upon arriving at the scene, officers learned that BustamanteMartinez had assaulted his wife, threatened to kill himself, and locked himselfin a bedroom. Officers further observed BustamanteMartinez looking out of the bedroom window with a rifle in hand. Officersspondedto the same residence because neighbors complained that BustamanteMartinezwas firing a gun, and the officers personally observed him to be intoxicated. The officers evacuated BustamanteMartinez’s family while they attempted to diffuse the situation. Cf id.at 399 (“[T]he

4 fact that no officers on the scene sough
fact that no officers on the scene sought to evacuate the nearby residences, or, in particular, to evacuate Mrs. Yengel’s young son who was sleeping in the room directly next to the alleged grenadeprovides stark evidence that a reasonable police officer would notand did notbelieve an emergency ��4 &#x/MCI; 0 ;&#x/MCI; 0 ;was on-going, such as would justifya warrantless entry.”). BustamanteMartinez refused to answer the officers’ phone calls when they attempted to contact him, behavior that becomes more concerning considering that he had reportedly threatened to kill himself. Based on the totality of thecircumstances, we conclude that the officers acted reasonably, and thus the district court correctly applied the emergency aid exception.Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. Although we conclude that the district court correctly applied the emergency aid exception, we further discern no error in the district court’s alternative ruling that BustamanteMartinez’s daughter gave implied consent for the officers toerthe ence. See United States v. Hylton, 349 F.3d 781, 78687 (4th Cir. 2003