Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01280/USCOURTS-ca8-09-01280-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Antwan L. Tinsley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1280

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Antwan L. Tinsley, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 20, 2009

Filed: March 1, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After the district court1

 denied his motion to suppress, Antwan Tinsley entered

a conditional guilty plea to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2). Tinsley now appeals the denial of

his motion to suppress, and we affirm.

In the early morning hours of December 3, 2006, officers with the Kansas City,

Missouri, police department were called to respond to the intersection of 28th and

Appellate Case: 09-1280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2010 Entry ID: 3639345
2

Notably, the officers decided not to conduct a field sobriety test because they

believed that Tinsley's impairment was obvious and that it would not have been safe

to ask Tinsley to take the test.

3

The Honorable John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

Troost where a driver was reported to be slumped over the wheel of his vehicle. Upon

arriving at the scene, the officers observed Tinsley's vehicle stopped in the middle of

the street, with its left turn signal activated and the engine running. As officers

approached the vehicle, they saw Tinsley asleep in the driver's seat. In an effort to

awaken him, the officers began knocking on the window, shaking the vehicle, and

shouting. After about two minutes, Tinsley apparently awoke and, without

acknowledging the officers, began to slowly move his vehicle forward.

The officers returned to their squad car and activated its siren. After driving a

short distance, Tinsley stopped his vehicle. Officers again approached the vehicle and

shouted for Tinsley to roll down the window, put the vehicle in park, and open the

door. After another two minutes, Tinsley slowly rolled down his window. One of the

officers immediately reached in through the window, put the vehicle in park, and

opened the door. Upon opening the door, officers began to remove Tinsley and

smelled a strong odor of alcohol. Based on their observations, officers believed

Tinsley was intoxicated and arrested him for driving while impaired.2

While two officers placed Tinsley under arrest, a third officer began searching

the vehicle. The search produced a handgun, cocaine, and some marijuana. Tinsley

was charged in a two-count indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm

and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. He moved to suppress the

evidence found during the search. The magistrate judge3

 recommended that the

motion be denied, and the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and

Appellate Case: 09-1280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2010 Entry ID: 3639345
4

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the government dismissed the cocaine charge.

-3-

recommendation. Tinsley then pled guilty to the firearm charge but reserved his right

to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress.4

 Tinsley now brings that appeal.

"When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district

court's factual findings for clear error and the legal question of whether the Fourth

Amendment was violated de novo." United States v. Romo-Corrales, 592 F.3d 915,

918 (8th Cir. 2010). "[S]earches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior

approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth

Amendment–subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated

exceptions." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (footnote omitted).

"Among the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful

arrest." Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1716 (2009). Here, the district court held

that the search of Tinsley's vehicle was reasonable as an automobile search incident

to arrest. On appeal Tinsley contends that his arrest was unlawful and that the search

exceeded the scope of an automobile search incident to arrest as outlined in Gant. We

disagree.

Tinsley first argues that because police failed to conduct a field sobriety test,

the district court erred in finding that his warrantless arrest was lawful. "A

warrantless arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment as applied

to state actors by the Fourteenth Amendment." Stufflebeam v. Harris, 521 F.3d 884,

886 (8th Cir. 2008). "We review de novo the district court's conclusion that there was

probable cause to arrest, and the underlying factual determinations for clear error."

United States v. Quiroga, 554 F.3d 1150, 1154 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2175

(2009). And "[w]e consider 'the totality of the circumstances as set forth in the

information available to the officers at the time of arrest.'" Id. (quoting United States

v. Kelly, 329 F.3d 624, 628 (8th Cir. 2003)). Prior to his arrest, officers observed

Tinsley (1) sleeping (or passed out) at the wheel of his vehicle on a public street with

Appellate Case: 09-1280 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2010 Entry ID: 3639345
5

Such containers would be relevant to a subsequent prosecution not only for

driving while impaired, but also the separate, yet related, offense of consuming an

alcoholic beverage while driving. See Mo. Ann. Stat. § 577.010 (driving while

intoxicated); id. § 577.017 (consuming an alcoholic beverage while driving).

6

The magistrate judge also found the warrantless search reasonable under the

inventory exception. See, e.g., United States v. Betterton, 417 F.3d 826, 830-31 (8th

Cir. 2005) (discussing the inventory exception to the warrant requirement). Since this

search was reasonable under Gant, we do not express any opinion on the

reasonableness of the inventory search.

-4-

the engine running and the vehicle in gear, (2) taking several minutes to respond to

officers attempts to awaken him, (3) driving the vehicle away without acknowledging

the officers, and (4) acting lethargic and slow. Additionally, officers smelled a strong

odor of alcohol coming from Tinsley. Under the totality of the circumstances, this

information was sufficient to give officers probable cause to arrest Tinsley for driving

while impaired.

Tinsley's second argument is that the warrantless search of his vehicle was

impermissible under Gant. We disagree. Pursuant to Gant, "[p]olice may search a

vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is [(1)] within

reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or [(2)] it is

reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest." Gant,

129 S. Ct. at 1723. Tinsley argues that because he was already secured at the time of

the search, the search exceeded the scope of Gant. However, the officers' observations

of Tinsley's behavior coupled with the strong odor of alcohol gave them a reasonable

basis to believe that evidence relevant to Tinsley's intoxication (i.e. the means of

intoxication such as bottles containing alcohol) might be found in the vehicle.5

 Thus,

under the second prong of Gant, the warrantless search of Tinsley's vehicle incident

to his lawful arrest was reasonable.6

Appellate Case: 09-1280 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/01/2010 Entry ID: 3639345
-5-

Therefore, we conclude that officers had probable cause to arrest Tinsley for

driving while intoxicated and that the warrantless search was reasonable under the

search of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest exception as refined by Gant.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-1280 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/01/2010 Entry ID: 3639345