Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03839/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03839-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Lincoln Bachman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3839

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff–Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Ronald Lincoln Bachman, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Defendant–Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2005

Filed: June 29, 2005 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Lincoln Bachman appeals from the district court's1

 denial of his motion

to suppress evidence seized as a result of what he alleges was an unconstitutional stop

made without reasonable suspicion. We affirm.

On March 6, 2004, law enforcement made a controlled buy of

methamphetamine from Bachman. The controlled buy was arranged following the

arrest the previous night of David Baber for possession of methamphetamine. During

Appellate Case: 04-3839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2005 Entry ID: 1921934
-2-

a post-arrest interview, Baber informed law enforcement he had regularly purchased

methamphetamine from Bachman. He related the manner in which purchases would

normally be carried out and agreed to cooperate with law enforcement in staging a

controlled buy.

After Baber had related the usual means in which the sales had been carried

out, he made phone calls to Bachman to arrange a sale. Prior to the actual controlled

buy, Baber was searched, wired and provided with preserialized funds. Law

enforcement officers drove Baber to his residence and took up positions to await the

arranged delivery.

The controlled buy went down in its usual fashion. Bachman arrived at the

residence and Baber entered his vehicle. One important difference at this buy was

law enforcement could overhear the conversation between Baber and Bachman via

Baber’s microphone. At the suppression hearing, a law enforcement officer testified

he heard sounds he interpreted as the rustling of money. The law enforcement officer

also heard voices saying, “Here’s the stuff I got yesterday” and “Here’s the money for

the stuff today,” and after a brief pause, “Here you go. It’s in there.”

As Bachman drove away, law enforcement stopped his vehicle, searched it, and

found methamphetamine together with the preserialized funds provided to Baber to

actuate the controlled buy. A subsequent search of Bachman’s residence uncovered

additional amounts of the drug, indicia of its manufacture, as well as a handgun and

ammunition.

A federal grand jury indicted Bachman on seven counts ranging from

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

After the district court denied the suppression motion which is the subject of the

present appeal, Bachman proceeded to trial where a jury found him guilty on all seven

counts. The district court subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment. On

Appellate Case: 04-3839 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2005 Entry ID: 1921934
-3-

appeal, Bachman contends the district court erred when it found law enforcement had

reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle following the controlled buy. 

As a general rule, law enforcement officers may make a warrantless stop of a

motor vehicle for investigative purposes "when the officers are aware of

particularized and articulable objective facts which, taken together with rational

inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the suspicion that the person stopped

is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity." United States v. Williams, 714

F.2d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 1983) (en banc). "Whether the particular facts known to the

officer amount to an objective and particularized basis for a reasonable suspicion of

criminal activity is determined in light of the totality of the circumstances." United

States v. Garcia, 23 F.3d 1331, 1334 (8th Cir. 1994). 

As for the present case, if reasonable and articulable suspicion existed in any

case, this would be it. Law enforcement received a tip from a known informant, who

provided great detail as to how Bachman's drug transactions typically went down.

See United States v. Spotts, 275 F.3d 714, 720 (8th Cir. 2002) (“A tip from a known

informant can suffice by itself to establish reasonable suspicion.”). After wiring the

informant, law enforcement listened as the drug deal between Bachman and the

informant went down, in a manner similar to how the informant said it would go. The

officer testified he heard the rustling of money and a conversation consistent with a

drug transaction. Accordingly, we believe law enforcement had a "particularized and

objective" basis for suspecting criminal activity, and thus affirm the judgment of the

district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3839 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/29/2005 Entry ID: 1921934