Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03694/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03694-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Doyle R. Hicks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3694

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Doyle R. Hicks, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 13, 2005

Filed: May 24, 2005

___________

Before COLLOTON, McMILLIAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On February 4, 2003, police arrested Doyle Ray Hicks at a convenience store

on an outstanding warrant. Officers then checked the license plates on a pickup in

the parking lot, confirming it was registered to Hicks. In the open pickup bed,

officers saw a deer hide – possible contraband because it was not deer season.

Looking through a partly open window, the officers saw gun shells and a syringe with

a brownish substance (believed to be methamphetamine). Based on these

observations, the officers obtained a search warrant. The search revealed two

firearms.

Appellate Case: 04-3694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906301
1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable James C. England, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District

of Missouri.

-2-

The government charged Hicks, a convicted felon, with being a felon in

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Hicks

moved to suppress, claiming the officers entered the pickup and moved the illegal

items into plain sight before the warrant arrived. After the district court1

 denied the

motion to suppress, Hicks conditionally pleaded guilty. He now appeals the denial

of his motion to suppress. Jurisdiction being proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this

court affirms. 

On appeal of a motion to suppress, this court reviews de novo the district

court's legal conclusions, and factual findings for clear error. United States v.

Anderson, 339 F.3d 720, 723 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1084 (2003). Hicks

claims that the illegal items in his pickup were not in plain view, and that the officers

reached in or entered the pickup before the search warrant arrived. Hicks argues that

the district court's factual findings are clearly erroneous because it overlooked two

photographs supporting suppression.

Two officers testified at the suppression hearing that they saw the illegal items

in plain view – before requesting the warrant – and entered the pickup only after the

warrant arrived. Hicks testified to the contrary that before entering the store, he hid

the illegal items. Thus, he claims that the officers could not have seen them unless

they entered the pickup before obtaining a warrant. Hicks emphasizes two

photographs taken from outside the pickup – one before, and one after the arrival of

the warrant. He claims they show items inside the pickup that he testified to

purchasing immediately before his arrest, which he could not have placed there.

Appellate Case: 04-3694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906301
-3-

The district court viewed the photographs, compared them to the officers'

testimony, but found: 

There is nothing credible in the record to contradict the officers'

testimony that Officer Lambe did not open the window or door or enter

the vehicle with any part of his body before the warrant arrived. There

is no evidence to support a claim that the officers invaded the cab of the

truck and furtively moved items to render them in plain view.

On the other hand, defendant's story that he knew he had illegal

items in his truck, and to hide them, he partially closed the ashtray with

a syringe of methamphetamine in it, and somehow covered it up with a

blanket, stretches credulity. Defendant, an admitted methamphetamine

user who had attempted to use that syringe that day, sorely lacks

credibility.

A district court's credibility determinations are entitled to great deference.

United States v. Gregory, 302 F.3d 805, 811 (8th Cir. 2002). The "decision to credit

a witness's testimony over that of another can almost never be a clear error unless

there is extrinsic evidence that contradicts the witness's story or the story is so

internally inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable fact-finder would

not credit it." United States v. Heath, 58 F.3d 1271, 1275 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 516

U.S. 892 (1995). 

In this case, the officers' testimony was not internally inconsistent or

implausible on its face. The extrinsic evidence, the two photographs Hicks

emphasizes, do not contradict the officers' testimony. The officer who took the

photographs explained the order in which they were taken, how they were

downloaded, and that none was deleted. The photographs do not conclusively show

that the officers entered the pickup before the warrant arrived. The only evidence

supporting suppression is Hicks's testimony. The district court did not clearly err in

this case. 

Appellate Case: 04-3694 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906301
-4-

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3694 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906301