T he H o no rable Jerom e Fa rr i s, Senior C i rcui t Jud ge f o r t he N i nt h C i rcui t , s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. * NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0590n.06 No. 08-5397 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DONAL D E. B EL L , J R., De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be for e : G ILM AN , C OOK , a nd F ARRI S, Ci r c uitJudg e s. * J E RO ME F ARRIS, Circ uit Jud ge. F o l l o w i n g a g u i l t y p l e a , t h e d e f

e n d an tD o n a l d

B e ll appea ls his conviction and sentenc e on the ba sis of the Four th Amendment and Miranda
. I. F our th Am e ndm e nt Un de r t he F ourt h A me ndme nt, a

pe rs on may be arr e ste d w ith ou t a

wa rr ant on ly on

pr ob a ble
cause . Vi rg ini a v . M

oo re , 1 28 S.Ct . 1 59 8 (2 00 8)
. B e ll c la ims the po lic e la c ke d pr ob a ble c a us e to
arr est him. Probable ca

use is deter

mined by looking to the totalit y

of the c ircumstance s. Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 230 (1983). A sequenc e of events ty pical of a drugtransac tion, standing a lone

### N o. 08- 5397

U nit ed Sta te s v . B el l

-2- and viewed in the light most fa vorable to the g overnme nt, ma y cre ate probable cause . See U nited States v. Hughe

s , 898 F.2d 63, 64 ( 6th Cir. 1990). To se c ur e dr

ug s fo r a c on fi de nti a l inf

or mant to buy , Gr e g or

y Pe c or a ma de a ph on e c a ll t o h is drug"sour ce." Be ll arrived shor tly there afte r. Upon his ar

rival, Pecor a s ai d "t h at 's him." Pecor a spent sever al minutes in Be ll's car while the confide ntial inf ormant waited in Pec ora’ s d et ac h ed g ara g e. When Pecor a returne d to his ga rag e, he pr oduced a

nd sold to the informant two ounce s of
cra ck cocaine. Me anwhile, B ell drove to a n apar tment complex, parked, and a ppear ed to count
mon e y . Bell m ay

be c or re c t th a t th e se a c tio ns , ta ke n in div idu a lly , a

re pla us ibl y c on sis te nt w ith inn oc e nt b e havio r, bu t th e e xiste nc e of pla us ibl e c on tr ary int e rp re tatio ns do e s not de fe a t pr ob a ble
cause . See B rinegar v. United States , 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949) (pr obable c ause require s less than that nec es s ar y t o s ecur e a c onviction). Under the totality

of the c ircumstance s, a prude nt person could re asonably

conclude that Be ll had sold Pecora the cra ck coc aine. Be ll's other

arguments ag ainst probable c ause a re unpe rsuasive. That the DEA investig ation fo c us e d o n Pe c or a

is i rr e le va

nt. Th e inv e stigatio n r e ve a le d in c ri min a tin g inf or matio n a bo ut B e ll. That the a rre sting off

icer s never

saw B ell at Pecor a' s house, and a cted on the ba sis of order s from others, is also irre levant. The knowledg e of a ll the police offic ers involved, not jus t the arr esting office r, may

be ag g reg a

te d in de termining whether

probable cause exis ts. United States v. Mc Manus , 560 F.2d 747, 749 ( 6th Cir. 1977).

### N o. 08- 5397

U nit ed Sta te s v . B el l

-3- Be ll nex t claims that the police lac ked re as o n able suspicion to stop him. A police offic er

" may sto p a pe rs on fo r inv e sti g a tiv e purp os e s wh e re , c on sid e ri ng the tot a lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s, the offic ers have a r easona ble and objec tive bas i s fo r s uspectingthat particula r per son is eng ag ed in criminal ac tivity ." United States v. W illiams , 962 F.2d 1218, 1223 ( 6th Cir. 1992). The police ha d p ro ba

ble c a us e to arres t Bell pr ior

to t he sto p. Th e y

the re fo re ha d a

ba sis fo r r e a so na

ble suspicion. Be ll claims that the police search of his car violate d the Four

th Amendment. Under Arizona v. Gant , 5 56 U. S. _

_, (A pr il 2 1, 20 09 ), po lic e may se arc h the pa sse ng e r c omp artme nt o f a ve hic le incident to a full custodial ar rest of a rec ent occ upant only if either (i) the arrestee is unsecure d and still may g ain access to the i nterior of the vehicle, or (ii) the police rea sonably believe that evidence of the off ense f or which the person wa s arr ested may be found in the ve hicle. Id. Th e po lic e c ou ld re a so na

bly be lie ve that e vid e nc e of B e ll’ s dr ug of fe ns e wa s in

the c ar. B e ll had appa rently sold the drug s inside the car , and had driven the car to and from the sa le site. Under Ga nt's se c on d p ro ng , the a uth or ity to s e arc h e xten ds to c on ta ine rs in t he pa sse ng e r c omp artme nt i f the police r easona

bly believe that evidence of the suspec ted crime ma y be found the rein. Cf. United Sta te s v . M ar tin , 289 F.3d 392, 399 ( 6th Cir. 2002). T h e p o l i ce could reasonably believe that
e vid e nc e of

a drug d eal wo uld

be fo un d in

the CD c a se . T he se arc h d id n ot v iol a te the F ourt h Am e ndme nt.

### N o. 08- 5397

U nit ed Sta te s v . B el l

-4- II. Miranda B e ll a lso a lle g e s a

vio latio n o f h is Miranda rig hts. After his ar rest, B ell reque sted an attorney
and wa s pla c e d in a hold ing ro om at the DE A of fi c e . Whe n one of the a g e nts we nt to the ro om t o
re tr iev e him , th e a g e nt d isc ov e re d th a t B e ll h a d v anis he d. B e ll the n r e a pp e are d w he n tw o a g e nts
came into the room, having appar ently just descende d from the c eiling. T he ag ents asked B ell what he wa s d o i n g, and B ell replied that he was “ up there looking a round.” B ell now claims that the qu e sti on ingof

the a g e nts vio late d h is Miranda ri g hts
. We reviewissues of Miranda violations de novo. United States v. Montano , 613 F.2d 147, 149 (6th Cir. 1980). To interrog ate a person in custody , Miranda war nings must be g iven. Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1967). Once a suspect invokes his rig ht to remain silent or to counsel, the police must terminate the inter rog ation. McG raw v. Holland , 257 F.3d 513, 517- 18 (6th Cir. 2001). Testimony elicited from further interrog ation is inadmissi ble under Miranda
. Edwards v. Arizona , 45 1 U .S. 47 7, 48 4- 85 (1 98 1) . B e ll i nv ok e d h is r ig ht t o c ouns e l. Howeve r, police ma

y interrog ate in violation of Miranda wh e re pu bli c sa fe ty

so re qu ir e s. New Y ork v. Q uarles , 4 67 U. S. 6 49 , 6 59 (1 98 4) . We have ex pl ain ed that " [t]he pu

bli c sa fe ty
e xce pti on a pp lie s ‘ wh e n o ff

ic e rs have a re a so na

ble be lie f ba se d on ar

tic ula ble fa c ts that th e y

are in dan ger.'" United States v. W illiams , 483 F.3d 4 2 5 , 428 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Talley , 2 75 F .3 d 5 60 , 56 3 (6 th Cir
. 20 01 ))
. F or an o ff ic e r' s b e lie f t o b e re a so na ble , " a t mi nim

um,

### N o. 08- 5397

U nit ed Sta te s v . B el l

-5- he must have rea son to believe (1) that the defendant mi g ht have ( or re cently have ha d) a w eapon, and (2) that someone other than police might g ain acc ess to that w eapon a nd inflict harm with it." Id. First, B ell argues that it was not objectively rea sonable to believe he had or rec ently had a
wea pon, beca use police se arc hed him when he was taken into c ustody
. No wea pon was found, a

nd the holding r oom was under police contr ol. Howeve r, the ag ents had a re asonable belief ba sed on articula ble fac ts that B ell' s situation wa s the rar e circ umstance in which a person in cu s t o d y m ay have g ained a cce ss to a wea pon. Be ll va

nished from his holdingroom for a period of time. When the a g e n t s r e tu r

n e d t o t h e r o o m , B e l l h a d a p p ar e n t l y j u s t d e s c e n d e d f r o m t h e c e i l i n g . Th e a g e nts could not be sure w here he had g one. B ell could have g ained a cce ss to another room or acquir ed any
wea pon which mig ht rea sonably be found or

fashioned in a

ceiling
. Second, B ell argues that even if there had been a wea pon, there could be no r easona ble belief that someone other

than t h e p o l i ce m i gh t g ain ac cess to it. Howeve r, the holding room had be en
c omp ro mis e d. Th e po lic e c ou ld n o lo ng e r b e sure that ot he rs did no t ha ve a c c e ss t o it
. F ina lly , B e ll argue s that the pu bli c sa fe ty e xce pti on sh ou ld b e c on str ue d n arr ow ly

be c a us e it i nf ri ng e s o n a fu

nd a me nta l c on sti tut ion a l ri g ht a g a ins t se lf -i nc ri min a tio n. Th e re fo re , B e ll i mpl ie s, t h e r u l e s h o u l d

a p p l y o n l y w h e r e a

d an g e r o u s w e a

p o np o s e s ani m m e d i a t e r i s k t o p u b l i c s a f e t y. Howeve r, the a g ents' question was not de signe d to e licit testimonial evidenc e from Be ll. Rather, a s

### N o. 08- 5397

U nit ed Sta te s v . B el l

-6- the Mag istrate Judge state d, "the question asked by the ag ents was ... intended to quic kly deter mine wha t ex act ly

was hap pen in g so t hat th ey cou ldass ess wha t ac ti on to tak e for th eir saf ety ." AF F IRMED.