T he H onor a bl e Dan i e l M
. F r i e dm a n , Ci r c u i t J u dg e f or t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s Cou r t of Ap pe a l s f

or t h e Feder al * C i rcui t , s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0301n.06 F iled: May 28, 2008 Case No. 07- 5799 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES of

AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. LEON M OR TON WEL CH , Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE M ID DL E D ISTRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

BEF ORE: BA TC HELD ER , SU TTON , a nd F RI ED M AN , C ir c uitJudg e s. * ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. L eon Morton Welch appea ls the d i s trict
c ourt ’s de nia l of

his mot ion

to s up pr e ss e vid e nc e . F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e AF F I RM. An under cover

police off

icer and a co n fidential informa nt (“CI ”) dr ove into a g as station, intending to conduct a controlled drug buy
. When a woman approa ched, the CItold her he w anted
cra ck coc aine a

nd g ave he r $40. She we nt around the buildingand g ot into th e b ac kseat of a Cadillac. A man g ot out of the driver’s seat of the Cadillac, we nt into the ga s station, returned to the Cadillac, and g ot back into the driver ’s seat. The woman the n g ot out of the bac k seat of the Cadillac, re turned to the off icer ’s car , and g ave the cra ck to the CI . The off icer signa led other police office rs who had be en watching both the Cadillac and the underc over office r’s car ; the y seized the Cadillac and the driver, who turned out to be defenda nt Welch. A sear ch of the Cadillac yielded2

c ra c k c oc a ine and , und e r t he dr ive r’ s se a t, a

fi re arm . W el ch wa s i n d i ct edo nch ar ges o f po s s es s i n g wi th i n t en t t o d i s tri b u t e c o ca i n e b as e, b ei n g a felon in possession of a firea rm, and possessinga fire arm in fur thera nce of a drugtraff

icking offe nse. He mov e d to su

pp re ss t he e vid e nc e ob ta ine d thro ug h th e se arc h o f t he Cadi ll ac, and , whe n h is motion to s uppress wa s denied, e ntere d a conditional plea of guilty to the char g e of p o s s essi on of a fire arm a s a convic ted felon. Welch now ar g ues that the police had no proba ble ca use to seize the Cadillac bec ause the office rs had no r eason to think there wer e any more drug s inside.

“ [A] w arr antl e ss s e arc h o f a ve hic le lawf

ull y sto pp e d b y

the po lic e do e s n ot v iol a te the fo ur th amendment if the office rs have probable cause to believe the ve hicle conta ins contraba nd.” United States v. Paulino , 935 F.2d 739, 747 (6th Cir. 1991)
. Probable cause is ba sed on a “totality of the circ umstances” and “r equire s o n ly a proba bility or substantial cha

nce of criminal ac tivity , not an actua l showing of such activity .” Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 244 n.13 (1983). “T his totalit y of the circ umstances a

naly sis includes a re alistic assessment of the situation from a law e nforc ement office r’s pe rspec tive.” Un ite d S tates v . B arre tt, 890 F.2d 855, 861 ( 6th Cir. 1989). The a ctivities that these offic ers obse rve d i n v o l v ing the Cadillac ce rtainly g ave the m probable cause to believe that the y l ikely would find cra ck coc aine in the ve hicle. Indeed, a fter
watc hin g the a c tiv iti e s o f We lc h a nd the wo man w ho a c tua lly de liv e re d the $4 0 wo rt h of c ra c k to the CI , the offic ers ha d littl e rea son to think t hat they would not find contraba

nd in that vehicle. The dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t e rr by de nyingde fe nd ant’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss. We AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.