* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30157

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TYRONE HADLEY

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 3:05-CR-74-1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence

discovered pursuant to a traffic stop, Tyrone Hadley, Jr. (“Hadley”) entered a

conditional plea of guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Hadley challenges the denial of his motion

to suppress, arguing that the district court erred in finding that officers had

probable cause to stop his car because its temporary license tag had expired. 

Hadley asserts that he was displaying a valid permanentlicense plate on his car,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 10, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30157

2

not an expired temporary tag, so there was no lawful basis for the stop. For the

following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The traffic stop

On November 26, 2004, Baton Rouge Police Department officers Jason

Thompson (“Detective Thompson”) and Brett Busbin (“Detective Busbin”) were

working for a group of apartment complexes that hire off-duty police officers to

patrol their properties. The officers were driving on a highway behind a 2005

Dodge Magnum (the “Magnum”) when the Magnum slowed to turn into the

apartment complex where the officers were going. Detective Thompson testified

that as the Magnum slowed, he saw a temporary license tag bearing an

expiration date of November 15, 2004 in the left side of the rear window of the

Magnum, and he mentioned this to Detective Busbin. Detective Busbin testified

that he looked atthe tag and confirmed thatit had expired. Detective Thompson

testified that there was no hard, permanent license plate on the car. After the

Magnum turned into the apartment complex and parked, the officers pulled up

behind it and activated their police lights. 

The officers approached the driver’s side of the Magnum to question the

driver, Hadley. Detective Busbin observed Hadley hunched down, apparently

attempting to put something underneath his seat. The officers smelled burnt

marijuana coming from the car. After they ordered the driver and passengers

to exit the vehicle, they observed several bags of marijuana in plain view inside

the car. Hadley stated that the marijuana belonged to him, and the officers

arrested him for marijuana possession and placed him in handcuffs. Detective

Thompson then searched the car and found a firearm under the driver’s seat.

The officers both stated that Hadley was attempting to hide a firearm magazine
No. 07-30157

1 Detective Busbin testified that a magazine came out of Hadley’s pants leg and that

Hadley tried to use his foot to push it underneath the vehicle. Detective Thompson testified

that when Hadley stood up from his seated position behind the car, there was a firearm

magazine on the ground underneath where he had been seated. In his affidavit of probable

cause, Detective Thompson stated that Detective Busbin had observed Hadley take a loaded

firearm magazine out of his pants and discard it under the vehicle.

3

while he was handcuffed, though their accounts differ slightly.1 After Hadley

stated thatthe firearm also belonged to him, the officers released the Magnum’s

passengers from the scene, and the passengers took the Magnum with them.

Detective Thompson recorded the expiration date of the Magnum’s temporary

tag number in his police report, but he did not record the temporary tag number,

seize the tag, or issue a citation for the expired tag. He testified that he called

in the car’s Vehicle Identification Number (“VIN”) to determine whether the car

was stolen; however,the Baton Rouge Crime Information Unit Activity Log does

not contain a record of the number having been run.

Hadley’s father, Tyrone Hadley, Sr., testified that on November 27, the

day after the traffic stop, he went to pick up the Magnum at the home of one of

the passengers. He stated that at that time the car had a hard license plate and

not a temporary tag.

B. The history of the Magnum prior to the traffic stop

At the time of the traffic stop, Hadley was renting the Magnum from

Enterprise Rent-A-Car (“Enterprise”) in Denham Springs, Louisiana, with a

rental contract that began on November 8, 2004. Enterprise had purchased the

Magnum from Community Motors on September 16, 2004, and Community

Motors had issued a temporary tag for the vehicle on the previous day,

September 15. The temporary tag should have been valid for sixty days from

September 15, expiring on November 14. However, Marie Badon, office manager

for Community Motors, testified that the normal practice of the person issuing

temporary tags was to make the expiration date exactly two months from the
No. 07-30157

2 Subsequent to the entry of the number into the system, any rental contract involving

the car will have the hard plate number on it, regardless of whether the plate has been affixed

to the car. Therefore, the fact that Hadley’s rental contract contained the license plate number

does not establish that the plate had been installed on the Magnum at the time he rented it.

4

date the temporary tag was issued, a practice that would have produced an

expiration date of November 15.

Paul Stanworth (“Stanworth”), district manager for Enterprise, testified

that the car would have had a temporary tag when it was originally put into

service by Enterprise. On October 27, Enterprise received the hard license plate

for the Magnum, bearing the number A632673, at its administrative office in

New Orleans. Enterprise’s practice is to enter the plate number into the

computer system,2then send the plate through overnight mail to the branch

office in Denham Springs, where it is normally installed on the car within a day

or two and the temporary tag is shredded. However, at the time the Magnum’s

hard plate would have been received in Denham Springs, the Magnum was being

rented to another customer who did not return it until November 3. Under such

circumstances, the normal procedure is to place the hard plate in the file with

the customer’s contract for later installation. After the car was returned on

November 3, two other customers rented it before Hadley’s contract began on

November 8. Enterprise does not keep records of when hard plates are installed,

but Stanworth testified that he had no reason to doubt that at the time the

Magnum was rented to Hadley, it had a hard plate installed on it. 

C. Events occurring after the traffic stop

Ten days after the traffic stop, on December 6, 2004, different officers

stopped Hadley while he was driving the Magnum. Officer Felton Thornton

(“Officer Thornton”) of the Baker Police Department pursued and stopped the

Magnum after a witness to a disturbance told him that Hadley, who was driving

the Magnum, was going to get a gun and come back and shoot someone. Officer

Thornton testified that he searched the Magnum and found a hard license plate
No. 07-30157

5

inside the hatchback, not affixed to the car. He recorded the license number as

A632673 in his report, but he did not indicate in his report that the license plate

was not affixed to the car, nor did he issue a ticket for improper display of a

license plate. Officer James Rathmann, who also participated in the stop, also

testified that the hard license plate was inside the vehicle. Neither officer

recalled seeing a temporary tag in or on the Magnum.

After the Baker Police Department officers arrested Hadley for terrorizing

and simple battery, Rodney Halley (“Halley”) of RocketTowing came to the scene

to tow the Magnum. The tow slip contained a notation of the Magnum’s hard

plate number. Halley provided conflicting accounts of whether there was a hard

plate on the car at the time he towed it. In his original affidavit, Halley stated

that the Magnum had a hard license plate on it and no temporary tag. He also

stated that if the license plate had not been on the car, he would not have

written it on the tow slip. Subsequently, after speaking with the prosecutor and

other government officials, Halley executed a second affidavitin which he stated

that he did not recall whether there was a hard plate or a temporary tag in or

on the vehicle and that he was not sure whether the license plate number on the

tow slip was in his handwriting. His testimony at the suppression hearing was

consistent with the second affidavit.

Several months after these events, on March 22, 2005, Hadley received a

citation for a switched license plate violation. Corporal Darren Moses of the

Baton Rouge Police Department observed Hadley in a gray Cadillac with the

license plate number LVW710. When he ran the license number, he discovered

that the license plate belonged to a different car, a Mazda registered to Hadley,

and that the Cadillac’s license plate had been revoked. At the suppression

hearing, Hadley did not dispute that he had switched the license plates. 
No. 07-30157

6

D. The district court’s ruling

Pursuant to the November 26 traffic stop and arrest, Hadley was indicted

for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

and for possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). He moved to

suppress the evidence found pursuant to the stop based on his allegation that

the stop was made without a lawful basis, and the district court denied the

motion after a hearing that lasted several days. In its ruling on the motion to

suppress,the district courtfound that the officers had probable cause to stop the

vehicle because the temporary license tag was expired. The district court noted

that the “credibility of the witnesses was a major issue” in the case. It found

that although there was some conflicting evidence, several pieces of evidence

supported its finding that there was an expired temporary tag on the vehicle. It

noted that the officers had recorded the expiration date of the temporary tag in

their report and that the only way they could have determined that date was to

have actually seen it on the tag. The district court also stated that its conclusion

was supported by the testimony of the officers from the Baker Police

Department, who found the hard license plate inside (rather than affixed to) the

Magnum ten days after the traffic stop. It also found persuasive the fact that

Hadley was subsequently cited for switching a license plate from one car to

another. Hadley entered a conditional plea of guilty to the violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) and timely filed a notice of appeal.

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court has jurisdiction over Hadley’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

In reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, “we review the

district court’s factual findings, including its credibility choices, for clear error

and its legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 435 (5th

Cir. 2002). In reviewing factual determinations, “we will not disturb findings

of fact unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
No. 07-30157

7

been made.” United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 1997). In

addition, “[w]e will not second guess the district court’s factual findings as to the

credibility of witnesses.” Id. However, we may hold a trial court’s decision to

credit a witness’s testimony erroneous on review if “[d]ocuments or objective

evidence . . . contradict the witness’ story; or the story itself [is] so internally

inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable factfinder would not

credit it.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574-75 (1985). 

III. ANALYSIS

The sole issue on appeal is one of fact: whether Detectives Busbin and

Thompson observed an expired temporary tag on the Magnum on November 26,

2004. If they observed an expired tag, it is undisputed that they had probable

cause to stop the vehicle. See LA. REV.STAT. ANN. § 32:51 (2002) (providing that

“[n]o person shall operate . . . any motor vehicle upon the highways of this state

unless it is registered with the commissioner”); BATON ROUGE, LA., CITY

MUNICIPAL CODE § 11:252 (“No person shall operate, or permit to be operated,

any motor vehicle upon the streets of this city unless it has a current and

properly displayed license plate in accordance with the laws of this state.”);

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996) (“As a general matter, the

decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable

cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.”). The officers concede that

their only basis for stopping the Magnum was the expired tag;therefore, ifthere

was no expired tag, there was no justification for the stop. 

Hadley makes several arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the

evidence shows that there was a hard plate on the car both before and after the

traffic stop. He contends that according to Enterprise’s usual practices, the

hard plate would have been placed on the car before it was rented to him on

November 8. He also argues that the hard license plate was on the car at the

time of his arrest ten days after the traffic stop, pointing out that the Baker
No. 07-30157

8

Police Department officers recorded the hard license plate number in their

report, that the Baker officers did not cite him for failure to display a proper

license plate, that the license number was written on the tow slip, and that the

tow truck driver, Halley, testified that his normal practice was to write a

number on the tow slip only if he observed the plate on the car.

Hadley also contends that several facts cast doubt on the credibility of

Detectives Busbin and Thompson: the differences in the officers’ accounts of

Hadley’s attempt to hide the firearm magazine, the fact that the officers have

previously stopped vehicles on questionable grounds and have written police

reports with strikingly similar language, and the fact that although Officer

Thompson testified that he called in the Magnum’s VIN number, there is no

evidence of such a call. He also contends that the officers could have come up

with the expiration date of the temporary tag to write in their report by

examining the registration, observing the sale date of September 16, and adding

sixty days. He maintains that the fact that the officers did not write down the

temporary tag number, seize it, or issue a citation for it casts doubt on their

statement that there was an expired temporary tag.

Although Hadley does point to some evidence in support of his position,

we find that there was stronger evidence supporting the district court’s

conclusion. First, Detectives Busbin and Thompson both testified that they

observed an expired temporary tag, and they wrote down the expiration date in

their police report. The most logical explanation for their having known the

expiration date is that they actually observed it. Hadley’s suggested version of

events—that the officers observed a car with a valid license plate and decided to

manufacture a pretext for stopping it by finding its registration, noting its date

of sale, calculating the probable expiration date of a nonexistent temporary tag,

and recording that date in their report—is extremely implausible. Had the

officers wished to invent a false reason for the stop, they could have simply
No. 07-30157

9

claimed that Hadley had exceeded the speed limit or failed to signal. Second, the

testimony of two Baker Police Department officers supports the district court’s

conclusion: they stated that ten days after the traffic stop, the license plate was

not affixed to the Magnum. Hadley provides no reason to doubt that testimony,

nor does he provide any explanation for why the hard plate would have been

affixed to the car on November 26 but inside the car ten days later. The tow

truck driver’s initial affidavit stating that the hard plate was actually on the car

when he towed it is undermined by his subsequent affidavit and testimony. The

district court’s decision to credit the Baker officers’ testimony and not the tow

truck driver’s was reasonable. Third, Hadley’s subsequent citation for switching

license plates from one car to another provides some support for the possibility

that even if the plate was on the car at some point, it might not have been

present at the time of the traffic stop because Hadley could have switched the

plate to another car.

None of Hadley’s arguments attacking Detective Busbin’s and Detective

Thompson’s credibility persuade us to second-guess the district court’s

determination that their testimony was credible. The differences in the officers’

testimony regarding Hadley’s attempt to hide the firearm magazine are

extremely minor and are explained by the fact that Detective Thompson did not

actually see the defendant’s initial efforts to hide the magazine; he observed the

magazine only after the defendant stood up. Hadley’s contention that the

officers have a pattern of making questionable traffic stops is undermined by the

fact that in at least one of the two cases Hadley cites, the defendant’s motion to

suppress was ultimately denied because this court found the officers’ actions

legitimate. See United States v. Brown, 209 F. App’x. 450, 454-55 (5th Cir.

2006). In addition, the similarity in the language between different police

reports generated by the officers does not suggest that the traffic stops reported

were invalid; rather, it may be that the officers reasonably used prior reports as
No. 07-30157

10

templates to save time. Finally, the fact that the officers did not seize the

temporary tag or issue a citation for it does not demonstrate that the stop was

unreasonable. The officers arrested Hadley for serious drug and firearm

offenses, and it was reasonable for them to focus on those offenses without citing

him for the minor traffic violation that provided the basis for the stop. See, e.g.,

United States v. Colin, 928 F.2d 676, 678 (5th Cir. 1991) (“Given the subsequent

discovery of a sawed-off shotgun and two outstanding arrest warrants, it is

understandable that [the officer] lost interest in minor traffic violations.”). 

IV. CONCLUSION

The district court carefully considered the credibility of several witnesses,

examined the documentary evidence, and found that Detectives Thompson and

Busbin had observed an expired temporary tag on the Magnum when they

stopped it. That factual finding was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we hold

that the officers had probable cause to stop the vehicle, and the district court

properly denied the motion to suppress. Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.