Unpublished Disposition, 933 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 933 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1991)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Jose Antonio VALLEJO-RUBIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-10471.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 1991.* Decided May 22, 1991.

Before FARRIS, BOOCHEVER and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Jose Antonio Vallejo-Rubio appeals his conviction upon a conditional guilty plea. He asserts that the conviction is based upon evidence discovered by an illegal search of his premises. We affirm.

In the early hours of the morning, officers from the Vallejo Police Department arrived at the house at 515 Viewmont Street in Benecia, California. From an earlier search elsewhere, and from speaking to the people found at the time of that search, the police had reason to suspect that the Viewmont Street property was being used by drug traffickers.

When the police knocked at the door of the Viewmont house the door was opened. The police were then overcome by the powerful aroma of harvested and dried marijuana--it was clear to them that a large amount of marijuana was on the premises. They immediately entered, detained the defendant, performed a protective sweep during which they saw a great deal of marijuana and cocaine, and then sought a search warrant.

Given all of the information available to the officers after the door was opened, we hold that the officers had probable cause to believe that there was contraband on the premises. See United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478, 482, 105 S. Ct. 881, 884, 83 L. Ed. 2d 890 (odor of marijuana may be of itself sufficient to establish probable cause); United States v. Hoyos, 892 F.2d 1387, 1396 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 80, 112 L. Ed. 2d (1990) (logical for police to infer additional drugs would be hidden in the residences of the Rubios' drug trafficking associates). Moreover, given the nature of the narcotics trade, and the fact that the officers were confronted with a marijuana warehouse, it is clear that exigent circumstances prompted the officers to arrest those immediately before them and to sweep the premises for others before a search warrant was sought. See United States v. Castillo, 866 F.2d 1071, 1081 (9th Cir. 1988) (exigent circumstances present when officers had personal knowledge, based on past field experience and on evidence discovered during the current investigation that drug dealers carry guns and resort to violence); United States v. McLaughlin, 525 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 427 U.S. 904, 96 S. Ct. 3190, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1198 (1976) (an earlier arrest made it more likely that those in the residence would discover that they were under surveillance; this would lead them to destroy evidence or try to escape). The police could hardly have been expected to walk away, and, thus, leave possibly armed suspects sitting on a large cache of illegal drugs. Reasonable officers would not do so, and no court would expect them to do so.

Therefore, the entry and protective sweep were proper, and we need not consider whether the later obtained warrant would have been proper if the earlier entry were not.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to 9th Cir.R. 34-4(a)

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.