Torres

MEMORANDUM **

Arturo Hernández-Torres (“Appellant”), appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, following which he entered conditional pleas of guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine ( 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii)) and illegal reentry of a deported alien ( 8 U.S.C. § 1326 ). Appellant argues that law enforcement unlawfully entered the constitutionally protected curtilage surrounding his home because, at the time of entry, they did not have probable cause to secure Appellant’s residence and no exigent circumstances justified a belief that evidence of methamphetamine trafficking would be destroyed or removed before a warrant could be obtained. The district court’s factual findings are not in dispute. Moreover, the parties are familiar with the facts, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the denial of a motion to suppress evidence de novo, see United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 578 (9th Cir.2004), and affirm.

It is undisputed that the detectives and officers did not have a warrant at the time…

concurring.

I agree essentially with the majority that exigent circumstances existed that justified the officers’ entering the curtilage before Detective Seanor could return to the house with a warrant. I believe such circumstances arose when other officers who were a part of the law enforcement operation followed, and then stopped and searched, the vehicle that left the house carrying methamphetamine. A sufficient risk existed that the occupants of the vehicle bearing the narcotics would notify the persons remaining in the house that a drug-bust was underway.