FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT NOVEMB ER 28, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1076 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00259 -CR- J-32-TE M UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us COREYLA VA LE MYE RS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(N ove m be r 28, 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, MA RC U S an d W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant C or ey

L av al e My er s a

ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s f

or poss es sio n w ithint en t t o di str ibu te 50 g ram s or m or e of c oc ai ne ba se a nd 5 00 gr am s or m or e of c oc ai ne , in vio la tio n of

21 U
. S. C. § 84 1( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 )( A ), a nd2

(b )( 1) (B ), and p oss es sio n of af ir earm in furthe ranc e of

adr ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e, in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c)( 1). My ers specifica lly challenges the district court’ s denial of his m otion to supp ress based on the court’ s determ ination that of fic ers ha d p ro babl e cau se to arre st hi m . No rev ers ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we
a f f i rm. A c onf ide nti al inf

orm an t ( “ CI ”) inf

orm ed lawe nf or ce m en t tha t M y er s w as a cocaine distributo r and that, on three differe nt occasions when the CI visited My er s a t a

hou se loc at ed

a t 12 81 T urtle Cr ee k D ri ve S outh inJa ck sonv ill e (the

“ T urtle Cr ee k ho use ”) , the CI ha d ob se rv ed larg e quanti tie s of

c as h w ra ppe d in plastic or hidd en in a fre ezer . The C I also inform ed law enforcem ent that My ers owned a custom

pick-up truck with four whee ls on its rear axle a s well a s several
m otorcy cles and all-ter

rain vehicles. To corr oborate the CI’ s statem ents, police conducted a “ trash pull” at the Turtle C reek house. I n the trash, off icers dis co ve re d m at er ia ls c om m onl y use d to w ra

p ki log ram s of

c oc ai ne , inc lud ing br own wrap pi ng tap e, bl ackrub be riz edwrap pi ng m at eri al , and cle ar p la st ic ba gs . O ff ic er s a lso dis co ve re d m ar ij uanaste m s, m one y w ra ppe rs in “ $2, 000 de nom inatio ns, ” an d m any pie ce s of dis card ed

m ai l a ddr es se d to My er s. Whil e
co nduc tin g surv ei llanc e of the T urtle Cr ee k ho use , of fi ce rs obs er

ve d ve hic le s in the dr ive w ay

that w er e co nsi ste nt w iththe CI ’ s de sc ri pti on o f My er s’ s ve hic le s.Mye rs ’s wi fe a nd ano the r pe rs on we re at the Turt le Cr e e k h ou se wh e n th e po lic e arr ive d w ith 1 Mye rs . In sear chingthe Turtle Creek house, office rs also found a loaded pistol, a heat-sealingmachine, 2 numerous heat-sealingbag s, plastic zip bags, dig ital scales, a nd duct tape. 3 Of ficer s rece ived a warrant to sear ch the Turtle Cree k hou se. Before executing their search, police observed My ers exiting the hou se with a groce ry bag and driving aw ay . Of

ficer s stop ped My ers and re turned him to the Turtle C reek hous e. My ers consented to a searc h of the grocery bag in his car; the bag 1
co nt ai ne d wrapp edcu rren cy to ta li ng $6 1,0 00 . Ins id e th e Tur tl e Cre ekho us e, a pol ic e of fi ce r sawkil o w ra

ppe rs f or c oc ai ne ; and M y er s w as r ea d hi s M ir an da rights. My ers then told the officers that all the dope found in the house belo nged to h im
. H e al so p oin te d ou t a box c ont ai nin g po w de r co ca ine a nd c ra ck c oc ai ne
an d anothe r box co nta ini ng m ar ij uana . A ft er a n of fi ce r as ke d M y er s “ w he re he go t t he co cai ne ,” Myers res po nd ed , “ It’s m in e; it ’s all m in e.” 2 My er s a sse rt s th at , be ca

use of fi ce rs la ck ed

pr oba ble c au se to ar

re st h im , the district court sho uld have granted his m otion to supp ress evidence of m oney seized fr om

him and the bag in his car

as w ell as his statem ents to the po lice af terMy ers notes that his motion to suppress did not attack the validity of the sea rch w arr ant obtained 3 by po lic e , no r d id i t se e k s up pr e ssi on of e vid e nc e ob ta ine d f

ro m th e Turt le Cr e e k h ou se purs ua nt t o the se arc h w arr ant. 4 he r ec ei ve d M ir an daw ar nin gs. T he re fo re , he c ont en ds tha t, a lth oughpr oba ble 3
ca use sup porte d ase ar chof the T urtle Cr ee k ho use , it did not sup port hi s arr es t. Inc onsi de ri ng the de nia l of ade fe ndant’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s, w e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s of

f ac t f or c le ar e rr or a nd i ts a ppl ic at ionof

lawto tho se fact s d e n ov o. Un it edSta te s v . Desi r, 25 7 F .3d12 33 , 12 35 -3 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1)
. A nd w e co nstru e al l f

ac ts i n th e lig ht m ost

f av or ab le to the pr ev ai lin g party : the go ve rn m en t. Un it edSta te s v . Boyce, 35 1 F .3d11 02 , 11 05 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

“ [T ] he Co nst itu tio n pe rm its a n of fi ce r to arr es t a

sus pe ct w ith out aw ar rant if the re is pr oba

ble c au se to be lie ve that the sus pe ct ha s c om m itt ed or is
co m m it ti ng an off

en se .” Mi ch ig an v. DeFi ll ip po , 99 S.Ct . 26 27 , 26 31 (19 79 ).

“ Fo r pr oba

ble c au se to ex ist , . . . a n arr es t m ust be obj ec tiv el y

r ea sona ble ba se d on the totalityof the circ um stances.” Le e v. Ferr aro, 284 F.3d 1188 , 1195 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 2 ). “ Th i s s t an d ar di s m et wh en th e f ac t s an dci rc u m s t an ce s wi t h i n th e o ff i ce r’s know le dge , of

w hic h he or

she ha s r ea sona

bly tr ustw orthy

inf orm at ion , w oul d cause a prudent person to believe, under the circ um stances shown, that the suspect has com m itted, is com

m itting , or is about to com m it an offense. ” Id. (internal quot at ionom itt ed ). “ [W ] he n agr oup of of fi ce rs is co nduc tin g an op er at iona nd5

the re e xis ts at l ea st m ini m al c om m uni catio n be tw ee n th em , the ir c oll ec tiv e know le dge is de te rm inativ e of pr oba ble c au se . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ils on, 894 F
. 2d 1245 , 1254 (11th Cir. 1990). H er e, the tot al ity

of the c ir cum stanc es ind ic at es that of fi ce rs ha d pr oba

ble
ca use to ar re st M y er s. T he pol ic e w er e aw ar e that a CI r ep orte d th at

My er s w as a cocaine distributo r and that the CI had see n bun dled cash at the Turtle Cre ek hous e. T he police observed vehicles at the Turtle Cr eek house that were
co nsi ste nt w iththe CI ’ s de sc ri pti on o f My er s’ s ve hic le s. I n a ddi tio n, atr as h pu ll at the T urtle Cre ek house revealed not onl y m ail that indicated My ers lived at that loc at ionbut

a lso m ar ij uanaand p ac ka gin g m at er ia ls c onsi ste nt w ithc oc ai ne dis tr ibu tio n. T he re fo re , of fi ce rs ha d r ea sona

bly tr ustw orthy

inf orm at ion ind ic at ing that M y er s ha d c om m itt ed a n of fe nse inv olv ing dr

ug p oss es sio n or distribu tion. Beca

use officer s had probable cause to arrest My ers, the district
co urt di d no t e rr

in de ny ing My er s’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s e vid en ce obt ai ne d a s a
re sul t of his arr es t. AFFIRMED.