Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04002/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Michael Tavale
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL .... J UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAtJ~ited States CoGrtof Appeal, 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

DANIEL MICHAEL TAVALE, also 

known as Malaki S. Faafeai, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

DEC 2 9 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-4002 

(D.C. No. 91-NCR-35-J) 

( D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT, and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges . 

Defendant-Appellant Daniel Michael Tavale appeals his 

conviction for violating 1 8 U.S . C. §§ 922(g) and 924 (a ) (2 ) as a 

felon in p ossession of a firearm affecting interstate comme rce. 

Mr. Tavale was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by an officer who 

knew Mr. Tavale . The vehicle was stopped pursuant to a radio 

dispatch announcing that Mr. Tavale was a suspect in a burglary in 

progress and that he was reported to be carrying a gun. The 

vehicle was owned by the driver's mother. Mr . Taval e was ordered 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall n o t 

be cited, or use d by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the c ase , 

res j udicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36 .3. 

Appellate Case: 92-4002 Document: 010110154906 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 1 
out of the vehicle, told he was a suspect in a burglary, and 

patted down. The officer found an ammunition clip for a gun. The 

officer's subsequent search of the vehicle uncovered a gun in the 

glove compartment. The ammunition clip fit this gun. 

Mr. Tavale argues that the district court incorrectly denied 

both his pretrial motion to suppress and his motion for a directed 

verdict at the close of the prosecution's case. We affirm the 

district court's orders denying Mr. Tavale's motions. 

Mr. Tavale first contends that his motion to suppress should 

be granted because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop 

the vehicle and to pat him down. Although as a passenger he had 

standing to object to the stop, see United States v. Erwin, 875 

F.2d 268, 270 (10th Cir. 1989), the radio dispatch clearly 

provided reasonable suspicion for stopping the car and patting 

down Mr. Tavale. 

The government maintains that Mr. Tavale did not have 

standing to object to the search of the vehicle. Mr. Tavale was 

neither the owner nor a driver in '"lawful possession or custody 

of the vehicle.'" United States v. Jefferson, 925 F . 2d 1242, 1249 

(10th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Roper, 918 F.2d 885, 

887-88 (10th Cir. 1990)). Although the driver of the vehicle 

might have enjoyed a possessory interest in the car if the owner 

had lawfully loaned him the vehicle, Mr. Tavale was a back seat 

passenger. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rakas v. 

Illinois , 439 U.S. 128 (1978), we stated in Jefferson that 

"passengers in a car driven by the owner at the time of the search 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-4002 Document: 010110154906 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 2 
[do] not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the car such 

that they could raise a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search 

of the car. 11 925 F.2d at 1249; see Rakas, 439 U.S. at 148-49. 

Furthermore, ["i]t is immaterial if evidence sought to be 

introduced against a defendant was obtained in violation of 

someone else's fourth amendment rights." United States v. Arango, 

912 F.2d at 441, 445 (10th Cir. 1990). Thus, even if the search 

had violated the driver's rights, it would not be a concern 

affecting Mr. Tavale's rights. Because Mr. Tavale lacked standing 

to object to the search of the car, we affirm the district court's 

denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from that 

search. 

Mr. Tavale also contends that the district court should not 

have denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because the 

prosecution did not present sufficient evidence of his knowing 

possession of the firearm. In reviewing the denial of a motion 

for judgment of acquittal, we view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the government to determine whethe r there is 

substantial evidence from which a jury could find guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See United States v. Peveto, 881 F.2d 844, 860 

(10th Cir.) , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 943, 944 (1989). The evidence 

at trial revealed that Mr. Tavale had been patted down by an 

officer who found a gun clip on Mr. Tavale. The officer then 

discovered the gun in the glove box of the vehicle. The gun clip 

fit into the gun. There was also testimony that Mr. Tavale was 

seen with a gun, and that he removed the clip in front of the 

-3 -

Appellate Case: 92-4002 Document: 010110154906 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 3 
witness and placed it in his pocket. This evidence is sufficient 

to permit the jury to find Tavale guilty beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 

The decision of the district court is accordingly AFFIRMED. 

- 4 -

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-4002 Document: 010110154906 Date Filed: 12/29/1992 Page: 4