A warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances where illegal aliens were being held inside a house. The appellate court affirmed criminal judgments in consolidated appeals arising from alien-smuggling convictions. With respect to the defendants’ challenge to the validity of a search of apartment unit 3, the court held that Ramirez-Esqueda’s bald assertion that he was an overnight guest in unit 3 was insufficient to establish that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy; and declined to reach whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment because no tangible evidence was seized during that search, and none of the statements made as a result of the search was admitted into evidence in Reyes-Bosque’s trial or used to establish probable cause for a subsequent search. With respect to a search of apartment unit 4, the panel affirmed the district court’s conclusions that Reyes-Bosque did not have standing to challenge the search and, alternatively, that it was justified by exigent circumstances. With respect to the district court’s denial of Ramirez-Esqueda’s motion to suppress on Miranda grounds both of his confessions, the court did not reach whether he was in custody at the time of his first confession because any error in the admission of that confession was harmless, as the other evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court held that because there is nothing to suggest that the officers deliberately used a two-step interrogation method or that Ramirez-Esqueda’s post-warning statement was not made voluntarily, the district court properly admitted the second confession.