A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o honorthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 30,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 5076 M I CH A EL D ELE V A N EN G LES,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA *

( D. C. NO . 0 5 - CR- 1 0 4 - 0 0 1 - HE) S u b m itt e d o n th e b rie fs: D a v i d J . P h i l l i p s , A c t i n g F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e fe n d e r , a n d B a rry L . D e rryb e rry, R es ear ch & W r i t i ng Speci al i s t , O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder , N or thern & E a ste rn D istric ts o f

O k lah o m a , T u lsa , O k lah o m a , fo r D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. D avi d E . O ’ M ei l i a, U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , and K evi n D ani el s on, A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , T ul s a, O kl ahoma, forPl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee. B efo re LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge.-2-

M i chae l E ngl es w as i ndi ct ed on N ovember9, 2005, i n the U ni t ed St at es D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istric t o f O k lah o m a o n six c o u n ts a risin g o u t o f v e h icle se a rc h e s in M a y2 0 0 3 a n d M a y2 0 0 4 . E a c h se a rc h led to th re e c h a rg e s: c o n v ic te d fe lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a rm a n d a m m u n itio n , s ee 1 8 U. S . C. §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) ; pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e contr ol l ed s u b s ta n c e s , s ee 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1) a n d (b)(1 )(C ); an d p o sses sion o f a firearm a n d a m m u n itio n in f

u rt h e ra n c e o f

a d ru g -t ra ffic k in g c ri m e , s ee 1 8 U. S . C. § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) . B efor e hi s j uryt r i al M r . E ngl es m oved t o s uppr es s evi dence o b tai n ed in the firstsea rch . A fter the m o ti o n w as d en ied, he w as tri ed b ya jury a n d fo u n d g u ilty o n a ll c o u n ts . O n February24, 2006, t he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d h im to 4 2 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. H e a p p e a ls, c h a llen g in g th e d e n ial o f h is m ot i on t o s uppr es s . H e r ai s es no chal l enge t o hi s t hr ee c onvi ct i ons ar i s i ng outof th e M a y2 0 0 4 s e a r c h . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. I . BA CKGROUND W h ile o n p a tro l ju st b e fo re m id n ig h t o n M a y2 7 , 2 0 0 3 , O ffice r D a v id Shel bys aw M r . E ngl es ata ca rw as h i n T ul s a, O kl ahoma. T w o m onths ear l i er Shel byhad i s s ued M r . E ngl es a ci t at i on fordr i vi ng w i th a s us pended l i cens e. T he dayaft ert hatencount eran i nform anthad t ol d Shel byt hatM r . E ngl es ’ s carhad c o n tain e d a lar g e a m o u n t o f m e th a m p h e tam in e th a t th e o ffice r h a d fa iled to d etec t. S h elbyp erfo rm ed a c o m p u ter ch ec k to d eterm ine w h ethe r M r. E n g les’s-3-

lic e n s e w a s s till s u s p e n d e d . I tw as , s o w hen M r . E ngl es dr ove aw ayfr om t he ca r w a s h , S h e lb yfo llo w e d h im a n d tu rn e d o n h is e m e rg e n c ylig h ts . M r . E ngl es s t opped af

t erturni ng i nt o a r es t aur antparki ng l otaboutt hr ee bl ocks fr om t he ca r w as h. A s he appr oache d M r . E ngl es ’ s vehi cl e, O ffi cerShel bys aw t he handl e of a large sh ea th k n ife b etw ee n the c en ter co n so le of the v eh icl e a n d M r. E n g les’s rig h t leg . H e d re w h is g u n , o rd e re d M r. E n g les a n d h is p a ss e n g e r, K im b e rly D ix o n , o u t o f

th e v e h ic le , a n d a rr e s te d M r. E n g le s fo r d ri v in g u n d e r s u s p e n s io n . A ft erconduct i ng a r ecor ds chec k on M s . D i xon, he arr es t ed heron an out s t andi ng w a rra n t fo r d riv in g u n d e r su sp e n sio n . A fe m a le p o lice o ffice r so o n a rriv e d to s e a r c h M s . Di x o n a n d d i s c o v e r e d o n h e rp e r s o n t wo b a g s o f ma r ij u a n a a n d t wo m et al cy l i nd ers con t ai ning w hat appeared t o b e narcoti cs. O ffic e r S h e lb yc a lle d fo r a d ru g d o g , w h ic h a rr iv e d w ith in 2 5 m in u te s . U pon ci r cl i ng the vehi cl e the dog al er t ed t o both the trunk and the dr i ver ’ s door o f th e v e h ic le . Pol i ce offi cer s opened the trunk and di s cover ed a l ar ge duff l e bag, w h ic h c o n ta in e d m a riju a n a , m e th a m p h e ta m in e , c o c a in e , a n d a lo a d e d h a n d g u n . O n c e th e v e h icle w a s s e a rc h e d , itw a s to w e d a n d im p o u n d e d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith T uls a P oli ce D epart m ent pr oced ures. A ft erhi s i ndi ctm entM r . E ngl es fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s t he evi dence fo u n d in h is c a r. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n . O n appea l M r . E ngl es chal l enges thatrul i ng.-4-

I I . DI S CU S S I ON “W hen r evi ew i ng the deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e vi ew t he evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent , acc eptt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctunl es s cl ear l yerr oneous , and r evi ew de novo the ul t i m at e det erm i nat i on of r eas onabl enes s underthe Four th A m endment . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Appers on , 441 F . 3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 8 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). M r . E ngl es does notchal l enge the val i di tyof the i ni t i al s t op, hi s arr es t , or the arr es tof M s . D i xon. B uthe cont ends thathi s vehi cl e w as unl aw ful l ydet ai ned w hi l e the off

i cer s aw ai t ed the drug dog, beca us e theyl acke d r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t o bel i eve i tcont ai ned contr aband. T he di s tr i ctcourtrul ed thatt he di s coveryof drugs on M s . D i xon pr ovi ded r eas onabl e s us pi ci on. In o u r view , h o w ev er, r ea so n ab le su sp ici o n w as u n n ec essa ry . T h e o fficers d id n o t “d e tain ” th e v e h icle . T h e ylaw f u llya rre ste d M r. E n g les a n d h is pas s enger . T he aut om obi l e w as parked i n a r es t aur antparki ng l ot ; i tw as goi ng now her e. B eca us e theyw er e underarr es t , nei therM r . E ngl es norhi s pas s enger coul d dr i ve i taw ay . A nd M r . E ngl es does nots ugges tt hatt heyw er e pr ohi bi t ed fro m co n tacti n g so m eo n e e lse t o rem o v e the ca r. A dog s ni ff of

the ext er i orof a ve hi cl e parked i n a publ i c pl ace does not re q u ir e re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n b e c a u s e it is n o t a F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t in tru s io n . See Un itedS ta tes v . Hu n n icu tt , 135 F. 3d 1345, 1350 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( “A cani ne s ni ff i t s el f does noti m pl i cat e Four th A m endmentr i ght s beca us e of the l i m i t ed-5-

i nform at i on i tpr ovi des and i t s m i ni m al i ntrus i venes s . ”) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. P lace , 4 6 2 U . S . 6 9 6 , 7 0 7 (19 8 3 )); Un itedS ta tes v . L u dw ig , 10 F. 3d 1523, 1527 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( “[R]a ndom and s us pi ci onl es s dog s ni ffs [of c ar s i n open parki ng l ot s ] ar e nots ear ches s ubj ectt o the Four th A m endment . ”) . I f the arr es t i ng o ffice rs h a d m e re lytak e n M r. E n g les a n d M s. D ix o n f ro m th e p a rk in g lo t to jail, an off i cerw ho l at ercame upon the s cene coul d have e m pl oy ed a dog t o s ni ff the ext er i orof the vehi cl e fordrugs . I ti s i rr el evantt hatt he tw o arr es t ees r emai ned at th e s c e n e f

ro m th e tim e th a t th e d ru g d o g w a s s u m m o n e d u n til it a rr iv e d . I ti s undi s put ed thatonce the dog al er t ed t o the trunk and s i de door , t he o ffic e rs h a d p ro b a b le c a u s e to s e a rc h th e c a r a n d its c o n te n ts . See Uni t ed Stat es v. R os bor ough , 3 6 6 F . 3 d 1 1 4 5 , 1 1 5 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e c o n d u ct of the o fficers w a s th e re fo re la w f

u l th ro u g h o u t th e in c id e n t. B eca us e no i l l egal i tyt ai nt ed the ac tual s ear ch, w e nee d notaddr es s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s al t ernat i ve rul i ng t hateven i f the ac tual s ear ch w er e unl aw ful , t he evi dence w oul d i nevi t abl yhave be en ac qui r ed i n a l aw ful i nvent or ys ear ch. I I I . CO NC L US I ON We AF F I RM t h e j u d g me n tb e l o w.