2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-21-2004 

# U SA v . N ewm a n P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4083

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . N ewm a n " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 474. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/4741 NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-4083
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. PRAYLOR NEWMAN,

Appellant

____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE EA STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. C rim. No. 02 -cr-00539 -01 ) Distri ct Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyne r

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

July16, 2004 Be for e: S LO VI TE R, B AR RY and W EIS , Circu it Judges .

(Fil ed: Jul y 21, 2004)

____________ OPI NION

W EIS , Circuit

Judge . A jury found defendant Newman guilty of 15 count s of an indi ctment charging vi olati ons of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 922(g) (1), 924(a)( 1)(A), 924( e), 1503 and2

1512(b). He was sentenced t o 293-months i ncarcer ation.

In his b rief, de fend ant state s: “Th ere is o ne issu e raised for re view in this case. The i ssue is an appeal from the denialof a motion t o suppress physi cal evi dence.” Specifi call y, the chal lenged evi dence is two handguns found in a vehi cle dri ven by defendant. After an evi dentiary hearing, the Dist rict Court denie d the defendant ’s moti on to suppress. Police off icers testified that defend ant and a f emale co mpan ion we re obs erv ed a s the y left a tave rn a nd t hen dro ve e rratic ally alo ng t he r oad for som e dis tanc e. Because of previ ous contact s with defendant, t he polic e were aware that defendant had been guilty of a num ber o f infra ctions, p articular ly of the P enns ylvania M otor V ehicle Code. On the evening in question, the police learned that t he defendant’s driver’s li cense had been suspended and that t he lic ense plate on his van was not the one that had been issu ed f or th at ve hicle .

Based on these f

actors , thepoliceconfronte d defendant as he drove the vehic le into a park ing are a nea r an ap artme nt bu ilding. A fter lear ning that de fend ant did not have re gist

rati on or insur ance documentation, and further that t he female pass enger did not havea driver ’s li cense, t he officer s determined that the vehi cle shoul d be imp oun ded . Following munic ipal pol icy , thepoliceconducted an i nventory of the
ve hi cl e’ s c onten ts . O n op en in g the re ardoo r, oneof th e o ff ic er s s aw the ha ndl es of two3

Glock handguns proj ecti ng from a bag on the fl oor. Defendant was then arrested and t he veh icle w as to we d to the im pou ndm ent a rea.

In South Dakota v. Opperman , 428 U .S. 364 (197 6), the Supre me C ourt held th at inve ntory sea rches we re reas onab le wh en (1 ) the ve hicle w as imp oun ded o r in lawfu l police custody, (2) the search was co nducted pursuan t to standard po lice inventory procedures , and (3) the proce ss was aimed at securi ng the car

and its content s. Allof tho se re qui rem ents we re m et in t his c ase .

The Distri ct Court f

ound that be cause of the violations of Pennsy lvania law and the f act th at the veh icle c oul d no t be le gally d rive n, th e po lice p rop erly im pou nde d it. According to de partment al poli cies, an invent ory was to be done beforethe vehi cle was towed away and therefore the se arch in this case w as approp riate. The D istrict Court
conc luded that in th ese circ um stance s, the de fend ant’s rig hts un der the Fou rth Am end me nt h ad n ot b een vio lated .

Our review of the record convi nces us that theDistri ct Court’ s ruli ng was correct. The v ehicle wa s lawfu lly t aken into p olice custody at the time o f the inven tory
sea rch . See Commonw ealth v. Marti nson , 533 A.2 d 75 0, 13 7-3 8 (P a. Su per . Ct. 1 987 ). Furthermore, al l of therequirements of Opperman were complied wit h and the inform ation a vailab le to the police offic ers be fore s topp ing the vehic le wa s suff icient to pre sen t pro bab le ca use .4 In anyevent, in view of the other e vidence, if the re was err or, i t was har mle ss. Ac cor din gly, the jud gm ent o f the Dis trict C our t wi ll be a ffir me d.