Hart

MEMORANDUM **

Convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1), Tommy Hart appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the gun he tossed out a window of his home and statements made to the San Francisco police after his arrest. Even assuming the Personal Protective Services (“PPS”) officers are state actors, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Hart’s motion to suppress because the warrant-less entry of Hart’s home and seizure of the gun was justified by exigent circumstances.

We review the lawfulness of a search and seizure de novo. United States v. Mendoza-Ortiz, 262 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.2001). A finding of exigent circumstances presents a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. United States v. Hudson, 100 F.3d 1409, 1417 (9th Cir.1996).

The following specific and articulable facts demonstrate that the PPS officers reasonably could believe that a warrantless entry was necessary to prevent physical harm to the Sunnydale residents: (1) approximately twenty minutes before seeing Hart, the officers heard a report of shots fired in the area; (2) Officer Carolina observed Hart with a weapon; (3)…