UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4840
EMMETTE JEROME KELLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CR-99-20)
Submitted: April 20, 2000
Decided: May 3, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Robert Moody, IV, Cathy Ellen Krinick, KRINICK, SEGALL,
MOODY & LEWIS, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen
F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Robert E. Bradenham, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Billy B. Ruhling, II, Third Year Law Student,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Emmette Jerome Kelley appeals his conviction entered after a jury
trial for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). On appeal, Kelley suggests only that
the district court erred in declining to suppress the evidence obtained
as a result of the execution of a valid search warrant because the
investigating officers failed to comply with the federal "knock and
announce" requirement. See 18 U.S.C.§ 3109 (1994); United States
v. Kennedy, 32 F.3d 876, 882 (4th Cir. 1994). The district court
denied Kelley's motion to suppress finding that the police officers
possessed a reasonable suspicion that the execution of the search war-
rant posed a danger to the officers. See Richards v. Wisconsin, 520
U.S. 385, 394 (1997); see Gould v. Davis, 165 F.3d 265, 270 (4th Cir.
1998). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error
and its legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Ward, 171
F.3d 188, 193 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 68 U.S.L.W.
3226 (U.S. Oct. 4, 1999) (No. 98-9884).
In this context, "a mere suspicion of danger-- if reasonable -- will
excuse the police from knocking and announcing their presence."
United States v. Grogins, 163 F.3d 795, 798 (4th Cir. 1998). We find
that in light of Kelley's participation in drug trafficking and the fact
that a reliable confidential informant observed a firearm in Kelley's
living room that same day, compliance with the knock and announce
requirement was excused by a reasonable suspicion of danger. See
Kennedy, 32 F.3d at 882; Grogins, 163 F.3d at 799 (collecting cases
regarding the "tight" connection between drug trafficking and guns).
The district court did not employ a "blanket exception" to the knock
and announce requirement in this case merely because this was a drug
related criminal investigation. Cf. Richards, 520 U.S. at 393-94. As
a result, we must conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Kelley's motion to suppress the crack cocaine seized from Kelley's
house.
2
Accordingly, we affirm Kelley's conviction and sentence. We dis-
pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3