Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0661-01.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. William Woodrow SPRINGFIELD, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30229
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 2, 2017  Seattle, Washington
    Filed October 20, 2017
    Lori Anne Harper Suek, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Joslyn Michelle Hunt, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana (Helena), Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant William Springfield appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

Even if Springfield has standing to challenge the search of the vehicle, the motion to suppress the evidence obtained through that search was properly denied. The district court found that the search of the car would have occurred anyway, even if Springfield had not been arrested and searched. That finding was not clearly erroneous. The officers testified that an inventory search of a stolen vehicle was standard procedure. See United States v. Mota, 982 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir. 1993). It is not disputed that the vehicle had been reported stolen. Because the methamphetamine “ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means,” the inevitable discovery doctrine applies. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.