Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01010/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01010-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Castaneda
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1010

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Jorge Castaneda, * 

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2005

Filed: February 24, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, HEANEY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Jorge Castaneda pleaded guilty to possession with intent to

distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). Castaneda reserved the right to appeal the denial of his

motion to suppress contraband seized from his vehicle. The police had probable cause

to believe Castaneda's vehicle contained contraband; therefore, the warrantless search

of Castaneda's vehicle was permissible pursuant to the so-called "automobile

exception." Consequently, we affirm the denial of Castaneda's motion to suppress. 

Appellate Case: 05-1010 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2006 Entry ID: 2013283
-2-

I. Background

The Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") suspected Demetrio Garcia of

selling methamphetamine in northwest Arkansas. Using a lawful wiretap on Garcia's

phone, law enforcement intercepted several conversations between Garcia and a man

identifying himself as "Jorge." During these conversations, Garcia and "Jorge"

discussed methamphetamine transactions often using code phrases. Each time,"Jorge"

called Garcia using the same cell phone. On one occasion, Garcia directed "Jorge" to

go to a residence in Springdale, Arkansas, that police already suspected for

methamphetamine sales. Following this conversation, police observed a vehicle

registered to Jorge Castaneda arrive at the residence. The police deduced that the

"Jorge" from the phone conversations was Jorge Castaneda.

Weeks later, Garcia and Jorge were heard discussing a future sale in which

Jorge would purchase a pound of methamphetamine from Garcia on behalf of an

individual who would be coming to town. The next day, Garcia and Jorge arranged

a meeting at Garcia's apartment. Police subsequently observed Jorge Castaneda at

Garcia's apartment. After Castaneda left the apartment, police stopped his vehicle for

a traffic violation. Although a drug dog alerted to the vehicle, no drugs were found.

On the following day, police intercepted yet another conversation between

Garcia and Jorge, in which Jorge stated that the buyer of the pound of

methamphetamine had arrived. Jorge also stated that he had the money. Garcia and

Jorge initially agreed to meet at the Dollar Store to perform the drug deal. However,

a subsequent call from Garcia, using heavily coded language, changed the location

to Garcia's apartment. Officers arrived at Garcia's apartment and observed Jorge

Castaneda's vehicle parked there. They then observed Castaneda enter his vehicle and

leave the apartment complex. At this time, the DEA agent involved in the

investigation called for Castaneda's arrest and the search of his vehicle because there

was probable cause to believe that he had committed a felony drug offense and that

Appellate Case: 05-1010 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2006 Entry ID: 2013283
1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

-3-

contraband would be discovered in the vehicle. Police stopped Castaneda's vehicle

and arrested Castaneda. 

Castaneda's vehicle was taken to the Rogers Police Department and searched

without a warrant. In the search, police found methamphetamine, a cellular phone,

and a handgun. The cellular phone matched the phone used by the individual

identifying himself as "Jorge" to make calls regarding drug transactions with Garcia.

Castaneda moved to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle, contending

that (1) the police lacked probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained

contraband; and (2) the search of the vehicle was not a valid search incident to arrest.

The district court1

 denied the motion, finding that there was probable cause to search

the vehicle based upon all of the facts known to the police. Castaneda pleaded guilty

to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), reserving the right to appeal the

denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to 135 months' imprisonment, and

he now appeals the district court's ruling. We hold that the police had probable cause

to believe that the vehicle contained contraband and therefore affirm. 

II. Discussion

When reviewing a district court's decision on a motion to suppress, we review

de novo the legal conclusion that probable cause existed while reviewing the

underlying factual determinations for clear error. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S.

690, 699 (1996); United States v. Logan, 362 F.3d 530, 532 (8th Cir. 2004). Under

the Fourth Amendment, the "general rule" is that "warrantless searches are

presumptively unreasonable." Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 133 (1990); see

also United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824–25 (1982) (reaffirming the "basic rule

Appellate Case: 05-1010 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/24/2006 Entry ID: 2013283
-4-

of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence" that "searches 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 welldelineated exceptions."(citations and internal quotations omitted)).

One exception to the general rule is the so-called "automobile exception." See

generally Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 158–59 (1925) (creating the

automobile exception). "The warrantless search of a vehicle is constitutional pursuant

to the 'automobile exception' to the warrant requirement, if law enforcement had

probable cause to believe the vehicle contained contraband or other evidence of a

crime before the search began." United States v. Wells, 347 F.3d 280, 287 (8th Cir.

2003). 

The officers had probable cause to believe that Jorge Castaneda was

transporting drugs in his vehicle on the day of his arrest. The police had intercepted

numerous phone calls between Garcia and a man identifying himself as "Jorge"

regarding drug transactions. The police identified the "Jorge" from the intercepted

conversations as Jorge Castaneda because the police had observed a vehicle

registered to Castaneda at a location that Garcia had earlier specified to meet "Jorge"

on the phone. The police intercepted calls between the two men discussing the sale

of a pound of methamphetamine. Following the call arranging a meeting at Garcia's

apartment, officers observed Castaneda at Garcia's apartment. In addition, the police

intercepted a call discussing the one pound sale and arranging a location. A short time

later, the officers intercepted another call changing the location for the deal to

Garcia's apartment. When surveillance officers arrived, Castaneda's truck was parked

at Garcia's apartment, and he left shortly thereafter. Given this evidence, law

enforcement had probable cause to believe that methamphetamine would be found in

Castaneda's vehicle. Wells, 347 F.3d at 287 ("Probable cause may be based on the

collective knowledge of all law enforcement officers involved in an investigation and

Appellate Case: 05-1010 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/24/2006 Entry ID: 2013283
-5-

need not be based solely upon the information within the knowledge of the officer on

the scene if there is some degree of communication." (brackets and citation omitted)).

In the alternative, Castaneda contends that the search of his vehicle was invalid

because it was not a valid search incident to arrest pursuant to New York v. Belton,

453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981). However, Belton and Carroll represent two independent

exceptions to the general warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See Wells,

347 F.3d at 287–88 (holding that there was no valid search incident to arrest because

"the search did not follow hard upon the heels of the arrest" but holding that the

search was valid pursuant to the automobile exception). While a search incident to

arrest must be "contemporaneous to the arrest," id. at 287, when the automobile

exception applies, the vehicle need not be immediately searched. Id. at 287–88

("When police officers have probable cause to believe there is contraband inside an

automobile that has been stopped on the road, the officers may conduct a warrantless

search of the vehicle, even after it has been impounded and is in police custody."

(quoting Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 261 (1982) (per curiam) (brackets

omitted))). Therefore, the search of Castaneda's vehicle was valid notwithstanding the

fact that his vehicle was taken to the Rogers Police Department rather than being

immediately searched where it was stopped. 

In conclusion, we hold that there was probable cause to believe that Castaneda

would have methamphetamine in his vehicle. Consequently, the search of his vehicle

was valid under our decision in Wells, and we affirm the district court's denial of

Castaneda's motion to suppress.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1010 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/24/2006 Entry ID: 2013283