2008 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 9-22-2008 

# U SA v . M cInt o sh P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2744

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 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 git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . 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 . M cInt osh" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 508. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/5081 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 07- 2744 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RI CH AR D M CI NT OS H, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 06- C R - 233 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e N or a B . Fi s cher Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember9, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , M c K E E a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: Sept ember22, 2008) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . A g ra n d ju ryin d ictm e n t ch a rg e d R ich a rd M c In to sh w ith b e in g a f e lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm , in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). M c In to sh m o v e d to s uppr es s cert ai n s t at ement s and the fi r earm . I n a thor ough and w el l - r eas onedTh eDi stric t Co ur t had ju ri sdic tio n und e r 1 8 U .S. C. § 32 31 . App e llatejurisdic tio n e xists 1 under 28 U .S.C. § 1291. See M iranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2 2 m emora ndum opi ni on, t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a deni ed M cI nt os h’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s . T her eaf t er , a j ur yconvi ct ed M c In to s h o f

th e o f f e n s e c h a rg e d . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt s e n te n c e d M c In to s h to , in tera lia , 33 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm ent . M cI nt os h appea l ed, cont endi ng t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by den y i ng his m oti on t o sup press . 1 T hi s C our tr evi ew s t he l egal det erm i nat i ons of a di s t r i ctcour trul i ng on a s uppr es s i on m ot i on, i ncl udi ng t he exi s t ence of r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, undera de novo s ta n d a rd . O r nelas v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 7 U .S . 6 9 0 , 6 9 1 (1 9 9 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. G oodr i ch , 4 5 0 F .3 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 7 n .5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e f a c tu a l f in d in g s a re re v ie w e d f

o r c le a r e rr o r. U nited S t ates v. M

yers , 3 0 8 F . 3 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). M cI nt os h cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed ateac h s t ep i n i t s anal y s i s by concl udi ng t hat : t he age nt s had a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o s uppor tt hei ri nves t i gat or ys t op; th e p a t-d o w n w a s c o n stitu tio n a llyp e rm iss ib le; M c In to sh w a s n o t in c u sto d yw h ile s peaki ng t o t he age nt s on t he s i dew al k, ordur i ng t he s hor tr i de t o M cI nt os h’ s hom e; M cI nt os h’ s s t at ement s pr i ort o bei ng M i r andi zed w er e vol unt ary ; and cons entt o s ear ch 2 th e h o u s e w a s a ls o v o lu n ta ry. W e f in d n e ith e r l e g a l n o r f

a c tu a l e rr o r. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e a g e n ts h a d a re a so n a b le s u sp icio n to s u p p o rt th e in v e s tig a to ry st o p . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Hens l ey , 4 6 9 U . S . 2 2 1 , 2 2 9 (19 8 5 );Un i t e d

S t a t e s v . Br o wn , 4 4 8 F . 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 4 n . 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e e v iden ce o f re co rd es t abl i s hed thatt he age nt s had bee n i nfor m ed byanotherpar t i ci panti n t he r obberyt hat M cI nt os h w as i nvol ved i n t he r obberyof a pa w n s hop. I n l i ghtof the fa ctt hats i x of the stolen firearm s w ere sti ll u n ac co u n ted f o r an d that the o ther ro b b er w as in cu stod y , there w as al so a reasonable suspi ci on t hat M cInt osh h ad p ossess i on of o ne o r m ore of these fi r earm s and mayhave be en att empt i ng t o di s pos e of them. T hes e ci r cumst ance s fur t her ju s tif ie d th e p ro te c tiv e p a t- d o w n . M cI nt os h as s er t s t hathi s s t at ement s and the fi r earm s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed beca us e he w as s ei zed byt he pol i ce on the s t r eetand i nt err ogat ed w i t houtt he bene fi tof b e in g M ira n d ize d . M c In to sh f a ils, h o w e v e r, to id e n tifya n yf a c tu a l f in d in g th a t is uns uppor t ed byt he r ecor d ort o expl ai n how t he C our terr ed i n i t s l egal anal y s i s . A ft er ca ref u l r ev iew o f th e re co rd, w e f ind n o rea so n to d istu rb th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s det erm i nat i on t hatM cI nt os h w as noti n cus t odyw hi l e s peaki ng w i t h t he off i cer s on t he s i dew al k. Fi nal l y , M cI nt os h’ s at t ack upon the vol unt ar i nes s of hi s s t at ement s and the cons ent t o s ear ch the hous e l ack mer i ti n l i ghtof the evi dent i arys uppor ti n t he r ecor d fort he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fac tual det erm i nat i ons . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof the D is tr ic t C o u rt .