Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03348/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03348-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Lee Philpott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3348

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Joshua Lee Philpott, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 13, 2006

Filed: February 9, 2006

___________

Before SMITH and HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Lee Philpott (Philpott) entered a conditional guilty plea to a charge of

felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2).

The district court2

 sentenced Philpott to 37 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’

supervised release. Philpott appeals, arguing the district court erred in denying his

motion to suppress evidence seized when Philpott was arrested.

Appellate Case: 05-3348 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2006 Entry ID: 2008029
3

The Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.

-2-

Officers obtained a state search warrant authorizing a search for marijuana and

methamphetamine at an apartment in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The affidavit in support

of the search warrant application stated the officers received information from a

reliable confidential informant that Philpott and others were present in the apartment.

The affidavit stated that the confidential informant had provided reliable information

in the past that had resulted in one felony arrest and two misdemeanor arrests. The

affidavit stated the confidential informant provided information against his own penal

interest, and that the confidential informant was familiar with drugs through his

personal use. The affidavit also stated the confidential informant had seen six to ten

pounds of marijuana in the apartment and four ounces of methamphetamine in

Philpott’s possession. An officer surveilling the apartment saw Philpott arrive at and

go into the apartment, then leave the apartment carrying a backpack. Officers then

executed the warrant, seizing three duffel bags with marijuana residue from the

apartment. Officers also found three documents bearing Philpott’s name in Philpott’s

worn clothing on a bedroom floor.

During the search, Philpott returned to the apartment complex. An officer went

down to the parking lot and directed Philpott to place his hands on the steering wheel

of his vehicle. Philpott refused to comply. The officer then directed Philpott to exit

the vehicle. When Philpott began to exit, the officer saw the butt of a handgun under

Philpott’s thigh. Philpott was taken to the ground and handcuffed. A search of

Philpott uncovered a small amount of ecstacy. A search of the vehicle revealed

another gun in the front seat.

After he was indicted, Philpott moved to suppress the evidence seized, arguing

the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. The magistrate judge3

 recommended

the district court deny Philpott’s motion, finding the officers had probable cause to

Appellate Case: 05-3348 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2006 Entry ID: 2008029
-3-

arrest Philpott. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation in its entirety and denied Philpott’s motion to suppress.

On appeal, Philpott argues the district court erred in denying his motion to

suppress, claiming the officers lacked probable cause to arrest him. “We will affirm

a district court’s order denying a defendant’s motion to suppress unless the decision

is unsupported by substantial evidence, is based on an erroneous view of the

applicable law, or in light of the entire record, we are left with a firm and definite

conviction that a mistake has been made.” United States v. Hines, 387 F.3d 690, 694

(8th Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “We review the district

court’s factual findings for clear error and review de novo the ultimate question of

whether there was a Fourth Amendment violation.” Id. “Probable cause to conduct

a warrantless arrest exists when at the moment of arrest police have knowledge of

facts and circumstances grounded in reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to

warrant a belief by a prudent person that an offense has been or is being committed

by the person to be arrested.” United States v. Hartje, 251 F.3d 771, 775 (8th Cir.

2001). This reasonably trustworthy information may be provided by a confidential

informant, if that confidential informant has a history of supplying reliable

information. United States v. Lucca, 377 F.3d 927, 933 (8th Cir. 2004). Viewing the

totality of the circumstances, we hold that the officers had probable cause to arrest

Philpott, based on the information uncovered during the search of the apartment and

Philpott’s actions in and around the apartment. Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3348 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2006 Entry ID: 2008029