The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District

1

Judge for the District of Nebraska, adopting the report and

recommendation of the Honorable Kathleen A. Jaudzemis, United

States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.

___________

No. 96-1568

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

William Haney, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 10, 1996

 Filed: October 9, 1996

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and

HANSEN, Circuit Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Haney appeals from the district court's denial of his motion 1

to suppress. We affirm. 

I.

On December 11, 1994, Officer Langston Farrish was working as a

security guard at a grocery store in Omaha. He attempted to speak to a

woman at the store who was visibly upset, but she refused. When the woman

entered the store for a fourth time, she approached Farrish and identified

herself as Vicki Romano. She told Farrish that she had been kidnapped by

the man in her car, later identified as Haney, and that he was a convicted

felon and had a gun. 
-2-

Farrish asked Haney to step out of the car and, concerned that Haney

had a gun, conducted a pat-down search of him. No weapons were found, and

Farrish asked Haney to leave. Haney took his bags out of the car and began

walking. When Ms. Romano's car wouldn't start, Farrish discovered that

some parts had been taken from the car.

Farrish began to pursue Haney because of Ms. Romano's repeated

assertions that Haney had a gun and because he believed that Haney had

taken the parts from the car. Haney attempted to flee. When Farrish told

Haney to stop, Haney turned towards him. Farrish then saw a chrome object,

which he believed was a gun. Farrish drew his weapon and ordered Haney to

lay on the ground. When Haney refused to do so, Farrish threw him to the

ground and handcuffed him. Farrish then removed a chrome revolver from the

pocket of Haney's jacket.

As Farrish was calling for help, Haney jumped up and ran into the

home of his neighbor, Jack Cronin. Farrish knocked on the door of Cronin's

residence and asked if Haney was inside. Cronin said that he was not.

After two witnesses said they saw Haney go into Cronin's residence, Farrish

again asked Cronin if Haney was inside and informed Cronin that it was a

crime to harbor a fugitive. Cronin allowed Farrish to enter and indicated

that Haney was upstairs. Haney was ultimately found hiding in the attic.

Haney was indicted as a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Following the district court's denial of his motion

to supress evidence, Haney pleaded guilty, reserving the right to appeal

the denial.

II.

We agree with the district court that at the time of the pat-down

search Farrish was possessed of specific, articulable facts
-3-

that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Haney was armed and

that it was necessary to search him for a weapon. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.

1, 21 (1968). Furthermore, by the time Haney was restrained and arrested,

Farrish had probable cause to believe that Haney was engaged in criminal

activity.

Haney contends that the district court erred in holding that he did

not have standing to challenge the warrantless search of Cronin's

residence. We conclude, however, that the district court's finding that

Haney was neither a resident of nor an overnight guest in Cronin's home is

not clearly erroneous. Haney thus had no legitimate expectation of privacy

in nor standing to challenge the search of Cronin's home, making it

unnecessary for us to consider his additional contention that the district

court erred in finding that Cronin voluntarily consented to the search. 

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.