Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04677/USCOURTS-ca4-07-04677-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick Bernard Harvey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4677

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICK BERNARD HARVEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:06-cr-10056-gec)

Submitted: February 5, 2008 Decided: March 13, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Fay F. Spence, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.

Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant

United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-4677 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/13/2008 Pg: 1 of 4
*Harvey does not argue on appeal that the stop was pretextual,

or that the search of his vehicle following the stop was not

supported by probable cause.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Harvey was indicted for possession with intent to

distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(D) (2000). Harvey moved to suppress the evidence upon which

the indictment was based, arguing that his vehicle was stopped and

searched without probable cause. The district court denied the

motion after an evidentiary hearing. Harvey pled guilty, reserving

the issue of the district court’s denial of his suppression motion.

Harvey argues on appeal that the district court erred in

denying his motion to suppress because Park Ranger Katie

Pitzenberger stopped his vehicle based upon a mistake of law.*

Harvey contends that, even if he did not use his turn signal at the

stop sign, Pitzenberger’s stated reason for stopping Harvey, he did

not violate the relevant Virginia statute because the statute

requires that turn signals be used only when another vehicle may be

affected by the turn.

We review the district court’s factual findings

underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and

its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Grossman, 400 F.3d

212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). “As a general matter, the decision to

stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable

Appeal: 07-4677 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/13/2008 Pg: 2 of 4
- 3 -

cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” Whren v.

United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996) (citations omitted).

“[O]nly the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal

activity is the standard of probable cause.” Illinois v. Gates,

462 U.S. 213, 235 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). 

The Virginia Code Section concerning the use of turn

signals provides:

Every driver who intends to back, stop, turn, or partly

turn from a direct line shall first see that such

movement can be made safely and, whenever the operation

of any other vehicle may be affected by such movement,

shall give the signals required in this article, plainly

visible to the driver of such other vehicle, of his

intention to make such movement.

Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-848 (Michie 2004).

In this case, although Pitzenberger’s observation that

Harvey did not use his turn signal at the stop sign might not have

been sufficient, standing alone, to constitute a prima facie

showing that he violated § 46.2-848, it was sufficient to

demonstrate a probability that Harvey violated the statute.

Pitzenberger’s own vehicle was parked close to where Harvey came to

a stop, and Richard Charles Schultz, Jr., Harvey’s own witness,

testified that he was following closely behind Harvey. Harvey’s

turn could have affected one or both of these vehicles.

Accordingly, Pitzenberger’s stop of Harvey’s vehicle was supported

by probable cause that a traffic violation had occurred, and the

Appeal: 07-4677 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/13/2008 Pg: 3 of 4
- 4 -

district court did not err in denying Harvey’s motion to suppress

the evidence seized after the stop.

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district

court’s denial of Harvey’s motion to suppress. We dispense 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

Appeal: 07-4677 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/13/2008 Pg: 4 of 4