Case ID: f-appx_227/html/0710-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Todd Allen BRUNO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-30446.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007.
    Filed April 20, 2007.
    Nancy D. Cook, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Coeur D’Alene, ID, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Kathleen E. Moran, Esq., FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Todd Allen Bruno appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 60-month sentence for firearm possession in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Reasonable suspicion supported Officer Gillmore’s request that Bruno get out of his vehicle. See United States v. Fernandez-Castillo, 324 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing de novo denial of motion to suppress, and requiring reasonable suspicion, given totality of circumstances, to support an investigatory stop). It also supports the officer’s pat-down search of Bruno for the officer’s own safety. See United States v. Flippin, 924 F.2d 163, 166 (9th Cir.1991); see also Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (permitting limited protective search for concealed weapons because officer “should not be denied the opportunity to protect himself from attack by a hostile suspect”). Once Bruno was lawfully arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, Officer Gillmore then properly conducted a search incident to that lawful arrest. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.