2004 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 3-24-2004 

# U SA v . C h amb e rs P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2696

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . C h a mbe r s " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 917. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/917NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT NO. 03-2696

________________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. ERIC CHAM BERS, Appellant

____________________________________ On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court For th e M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Crim. No. 02-CR-00114 ) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Yvett e Kane

_______________________________________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

December 15, 2003 Bef or e: ROTH, MCKEE, AND ROSE NN Circuit Judges
. (Fil ed: March 24, 2004)

_______________________

OPI NION

_______________________ ROTH , Circ uit J udge Eric C ham bers w as ch arged in a sing le-cou nt indic tmen t of be ing a f elon in

### 2

poss ession of a f irearm , in viola tion of 18 U .S.C. § 922 (g)(1). C ham bers m oved to suppress the fi rearms se ized duri ng a Terry stop, arguing t hat he di d not consent

to the search of hi s vehicl e. After the Dist rict Court denie d the moti on, Chambers entered a plea of gui lty

to the i ndictment , res erving hi s right to appealthe adver se suppres sion ruling. C ham bers w as sen tence d to 9 6 m onth s imp risonm ent. C ham bers n ow appe als fr om the Di stri ctCourt’ s order den y in g hi s mo ti on t o su ppr es s. We wil l a ffirm. We have juris dicti on pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. During the morni ng of December 20, 2001, just outsi de of Harris burg, Pennsyl vania, Officer Adams stopped t he automobil e being dri ven by Chambers f or susp icion o f a co unterf eit inspe ction stic ker. C ham bers id entified hims elf an d told Officer Adams that

he did not have a drive rs’ l icense, the regi stration to the vehi cle, or insurance paperwork. Chambers indic ated that he had pur chased thevehicl e a couple of months earl ier but

could not provide thesell er’s name. Officer Adams confi rmed that the inspection sticker was counterfei t, and while questioning Chambers de tect ed a str ong order of mari

juana fr om around Chambers’ pers on and from insi de the vehi cle. Officer Adams returned to his pat rol car and summoned backup, and whil e doing so Office r Vo gel, w ho h ad h eard Of fice r A dam ’s ini tial re por t of a traf fic s top , arriv ed o n th e sc ene . The officers went back to Chamber’s vehicl e and asked Chambers i f there was any
mar ij uan a or

con tr aba nd i n the c ar . Ch ambe rs re spo nde d “Idon ’t kno w.” Offi cer

Adams

### 3

then asked Cham bers for co nsent to search the vehicle. A ccording to both O fficers Adams and Vogel, Chambers gave hi s consent and upon request

stepped out

of the vehic le. Of ficer A dam s claim s he a gain a sked Ch amb ers if h e had any pro blem with them searc hing the ve hicle , and Chambers said no. Chambers clai ms he did not gi ve consent. According to Chambers , the firs t ti me he was asked, he r esponded by asking t he officer w hat does a s earch hav e to do w ith an inspection sticke r violation, and the o fficers ignored hi m. The second ti me Chambers was asked, he cl aims he jus t looked at the off icer “ like h e w as c razy.” Th e O ffic ers th en a ske d C ham ber s if h e ha d an ything illeg al on his p erso n. Chambers patt ed his coat pocket and said he had some “weed”. Officer Adams removed a small ba ggie from Chambers’ coat pocket , which cont ained a subs tance they s uspected was marijuana

and a smallglass vi al. Chambers was taken i nto cust ody, and Officer Adams began searchi ng the vehi cle. In the unl ocked glove box, Officer Adams found a
sem i-autom atic ha ndg un lo aded with a full m agaz ine of amm unition and a live rou nd in the chamber. While conducti ng the search, CorporalBrubaker arrived, respondi ng to the callfor backup. Officer Adams and CorporalBrubaker the n decided t o terminate the search and obt ain a search warrant . The vehicl e was impounded, and t he foll owing day the offi cers obt ained and exec uted a search warrant whereby t

hey found a l oaded sawedoff 12 -gauge sh otgun an d a loaded .38 caliber revo lver. II.

### 4

“[W]hen a prosecut or seeks to relyupon consent to justifythe la wfulness of a search , he ha s the b urde n ofprov ing tha t the co nsen t was , in fact, f reely and volu ntarily given. ” Bumper v. North Carolina , 391 U.S. 543, 548, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed. 2d 797 (1968). T his Cou rt reviews the D istrict Court’s factual determ ination of w hether a def end ant c ons ente d to a se arch for clea r erro r. Un ited Sta tes v. K im , 27 F.3d 947, 954- 55 (3 d C ir. 1994 ). “A f inding is ‘‘clearly erro neou s’ wh en alth oug h there is evide nce to support it, the review ing court on the entire eviden ce is left with the d efinite and firm conviction that

a mistakehas been committed.’” Un ited Sta tes v. P elullo , 173 F.3d 131, 135 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting United Stat es v. Unit

ed State s Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 , 68 S .Ct. 52 5, 92 L .Ed. 7 46 (1 948 )). “If the district co urt’s ac coun t of the evide nce is plausi ble in l ight of t

he record vi ewed in it s entirety ,” we may not revers e it e ven if si tti ng as th e trie r offac t we wo uld hav e w eigh ed th e ev iden ce d iffe ren tly. Anderson v. Ci ty of Bess em er C ity , 470 U .S. 564, 573 -74, 105 S .Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 514 (19 85). “W here there are two permis sibl e views of the evidence, the factfinder' s choice be tween them cannot be cl early

erroneous .” Id
. Chambers argues t

hat theDistri ct Court’ s findi ng is cl early erroneous beca use (1 ) in light o f Ch amb ers’ prio r crimin al reco rd, inclu ding felon y convic tions, it is unlikely Chambers would cons ent to a search t hat would ine vitably di sclosethe pres ence of proh ibited wea pons; (2) if O fficer A dams h ad actually obtained a n oral cons ent, there
wo uld h ave b een n o nee d to se cure a search wa rrant; an d (3) if Ch amb ers ha d giv en his

### 5

oral cons ent, it would be reasonableto expect a notation of that consent in the pol ice report , and the government di d not int roduce thereport

or any other notes by Officer Adams as rebutt al evi dence at t he suppress ion heari ng. These ar guments si mply t ake excepti on to the Dis tri ct Court’ s view of the e vidence. The Distri ct Court c redited the te stim ony

of th e p ol ic e o ff

ic er s a nd c onc lu de d tha t C ha mbe rs co ns en te d t o the se ar ch . A s this conclusi on is pl ausibl e it c annot be cl early erroneous . See i d. We will the refor e aff irm the orde r of the Distric t Cou rt.