United States v. Spencer

Opinion

Case: 25-40187 Document: 94-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-40187 FILED April 6, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Robert Spencer,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:22-CR-561-1 ______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Robert Spencer appeals following his convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of an explosive device. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they surrounded his house, pointed guns, and ordered him to come outside. He also argues

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40187 Document: 94-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2026

No. 25-40187

that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to suspect him of criminal activity and that there was no probable cause for his warrantless arrest. We ascertain no clear error in the district court’s determination that the initial warrantless entry and protective sweep of Spencer’s home was justified by exigent circumstances. See Case v. Montana, 146 S. Ct. 500, 503, 505, 507-08 (2026); see also United States v. Troop, 514 F.3d 405, 409 (5th Cir. 2008) (discussing applicable standard of review); United States v. Watson, 273 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 2001) (same). Further, contrary to Spencer’s arguments, law enforcement officers had probable cause to arrest him without a warrant. See Voss v. Goode, 954 F.3d 234, 238 (5th Cir. 2020) (stating that an officer “may justify the arrest by showing probable cause for any crime”); Tex. Penal Code § 42.12. Last, even if it is assumed without deciding that there had been a Fourth Amendment violation, the challenged evidence was admissible because any purported misconduct was sufficiently attenuated from the evidence in light of the intervening circumstances, the lack of temporal proximity, and the absence of flagrantly unlawful misconduct by law enforcement. See Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 238-39, 242 (2016). AFFIRMED.