FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 09 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cr-0 00 40 -MC R-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us CALEB ANDREW

GLOVER, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 30 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:On Dec em be r 13 , 20 09 , Chu wanBo ro s, anoff ic er o f th e DeFu ni ak

Sp rin gs , Fl or id a Po li ce Dep art m en t was su rv ei ll in g aToyota t ru ckin th e Wal Mart p ark in g lo t b ecau se it s o wne r, Cal eb Andrew Glo ve r, th e d efen da nt , was s us pe ct edof be in g i nv ol ve d i n t he rob be ry of aW in n Di xi e p harm acy two d ay s ea rli er. Bo ro s ch eck edth e truc k’s re gi st rat io n a nddi sc ov eredth atalt ho ug h a t s om e p oi ntin th e pa stth e truc k h adbe enreg is te red , th e reg is tra ti on ha d b een “ can cel le d,” m ean in g th atitwas n otreg is te redto an y on e. Andth e tr uc k d idno t s po rt ava li d l ic en se ta g. WhenGlo ve r ex it edth e Wal Mart wi th hi s wi fe an d young er b ro th er an d dr ov e away in the tru ck , Bor os fol lo wedan d i ni ti at eda tr affi c st op . After ob ta in in g Gl ov er’s i de nt ifi cat io n, Bo ro s g av e Glo ve r a traff ic cit at io n fo r op erat in g h is tru ckwitho uta ta g i n v io la ti on of F la . Sta t. An n. § 32 0.0 7( 3) . 1 Bo ro s n ot edon th e ci ta ti on th atth is was acri m in al off en se requi rin g aco urt ap pe aran ce. Bo ro s al so cit edGlo ve r fo r ha vi ng no pro of of i ns ur an ce, i n v io la ti on of § 3 16 .64 6( 1) , andfai lu re t o p ro du ce p ro of of r eg is tra ti on , invi ol at io n o f § 32 0.0 60 5 (n ei th er a cr im in al off en se ). Bo ro s arres te d Gl ov er an d p la cedhi m in th e b acksea t o f hi s p atro l car.

Section 320.07(3), F lorida Statutes, states, in pertinent pa rt: “Any person whosemotor 1 vehicle . . . r eg istration has bee n expired for more than 6 months, upon a second or subsequent offe nse, commits a misdemeanor of the sec ond degree .”

2Si nc e Glo ve r’s wife was u nabl e to dri ve an d h is bro th er was a juv en il e, Bo ro s an d 2 Lt. Dav idKrik a, Bo ro s’s s up erv is orwho ha d a rri ve d o n t he sce ne , im po un de d t he tru ck . A part ia l i nv en to ry sea rch co nduc te d a t the sce ne pu rs ua ntto th e p ol ic e de pa rtment’s i nv en to ry

po li cy y ie ld eda whi te m as k s im il ar t o t he m as k wo rnby th e Winn Dix ie rob be r, a lo ad edm ach in e g un an d a m m un it io n. A subs eque nt se arch co nduc te d a t the im po un dm en t l otpu rs ua ntto a se arch warran t u nc ov ered two fir earm s, amm

un it io n, co nt ro ll edsubs ta nc es , andit em s ap pa ren tl y co nn ect ed wit h t he rob be ry . A fed eral grandjury in di ct edGlo ve r fo r th e WinnDix ie rob be ry an d fi ve ot he r of fen se s b as edon th e ev id en ce s ei zedin th e ab ov e se arch es . Glo ve r m ov ed th e d is tri ctco urt t o s up pr es s s uc h e vi de nc e, co nt en di ng th athi s arres t was un la wfu l b ecau se Bo ro s l ack edcau se to be li ev e th athi s v io la ti on of § 32 0.0 7( 3) was a cri m in al off

en se ; h en ce, h e co ul d n otde ta inhi m an d h is tru ckco ul d n otbe 3 se arch edeit he r atth e sc en e o r atth e im po un dm en t l ot . The Go ve rn m en t, i n res po ns e, arg ue d t ha t the arre stwas l awfu l—th atitwas i nc on se qu en ti al th at Bo ro s’s ci ta ti on was fo r a n on -cri m in al off en se be cau se Bo ro s h adpro babl e cau se Glover’ s wife, on g etting out of the truck, told B oros that she wa s an epileptic a nd 2 sensitive to flashinglights. Bor os had no information that Glover’s e xpired re g istration was “a second or 3 subsequent off

ense.” See supra

note 1. 3to arre stGlo ve r fo r vi ol at in g § 32 0.0 2( 1) , a m is de m ean orof t he sec on d d eg ree, 4 5 by dri vi ng anun reg is te redve hi cl e. The di stric t co urt d en ie d Gl ov er’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s. Glo ve r th erea fte r st oo d t ria l an d the jury co nv ic te d h im of f iv e o f th e si x o ffen se s ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t: Co un t On e, ro bb ery in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 1; Co un t Two , us in g afir earm

whi le co m

m it ti ng th e ro bb ery in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 ); C ou ntThre e, po ss es si on of c on tro ll edsubs ta nc es with i nt en t t o di st rib ut e in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a); Co un t Fi ve , po ss es si on of am ach in e gu n i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 9 22 (o ), 92 4( a)(2 ); C ou ntSix , po ss es si on of an un reg is te redm ach in e g un in vi ol at io n o f 26 U.S.C. §§ l5 84 1, 5 86 1( d) , 58 71 . Afte r he was s en te nc ed , Glo ve r to okth is ap pe al . 6 Glo ve r se ek s t he va cat io n o f hi s co nv ic ti on s o n t he gro un d tha t the di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s. He m ai nt ai ns th at , bec au se he Section 320.02(1), F lorida Statutes Annotated, state s, in pertinent par t: 4 ever y owner . . . of a motor ve hicle that is operated or drive n on the roa ds of this state shall re g ister the vehic le in this state. The owne r . . . shall apply to the depar tment . . . for re g istration . . . on a form pr escribed by the depa rtment. A reg istration is not required for any motor vehicle that is not operated on the r oads of this state duringthe re g istration period. Section 320.57, Florida

Statutes Annotated, make s the violation of § 320.02 a sec ond 5 degree misdemeanor. The district cour

t sentence d Glover to c oncurr ent prison terms of 70 months on Counts 6 One, Thr ee, F ive and Six and a c onsecutive 60 months’ ter m on Count S ix . 4in it ia ll y

was c it edun de r Fl a St at . Ann . § 3 20 .07 (3 ), a n on -cri m in al vi ol at io n, be cau se hi s t ru ckdi d n otdi sp la y a li cen se tag , Bor os hadno lawf ul ba si s t o p la ce hi m un de r arre st , des pi te th e fac t t ha t h is cit at io n was lat er ch an ge d t o re fle cta vi ol at io n o f § 3 20 .02 (1 ), a cri m in al vi ol at io n fo r dr iv in g an u nr eg is te redve hi cl e. He m ai nt ai ns , m or eo ve r, th atth e in ve nt ory sea rch of h is tru ckvi ol at edhi s ri gh ts un de r th e Fo urth an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en ts be cau se th e im po un dm en t was no t a reas on ab le ne ces si ty andth e p ol ic e d idno t ab id e wit h s ta nd ardpo li ce p ro cedur es . I. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o s up pr es s as a m ix ed qu es ti on of l aw an d fa ct . Uni te d Sta tes v. S po er ke , 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Ru li ng s o f la w are re vi ewed de no vo , whi le th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of factare re vi ewedfor

cle ar erro r. Factua l fi nd in gs are re vi ewedin th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e p rev ai li ng pa rty in t he di st ric t co urt. Id . The Fo urth Am en dm en t p ro te ct s “ [t]he rig htof t he pe op le to be sec ur e in th ei r pe rs on s, h ou se s, p ap ers , andeffe ct s, ag ai ns t u nr eas on ab le sea rch es an d se iz ur es .” U.S. Con st . am en d. IV. A warran tl es s arres t wi th ou t p ro babl e cau se vi ol at es th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ly on s, 40 3 F .3d12 48 , 12 53 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Prob ab le cau se to arres t ex is ts when a po li ce o ffi cer h as a reas on ab le be li ef tha t a s us pe ctco m m it te d o r was co m

m it ti ng a cri m e, ba se d upo n 5fact s an d c irc um st an ces withi n t he ir kno wled ge . Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 96 9 F.2 d 9 99 , 10 02 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ).

“ Fo r pr ob ab le cau se to ex is t, an arres t m us t b e o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e b as ed on th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Str eet , 47 2 F .3d12 98 , 13 05 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (qu ot at io n a ndell ip si s o m it te d) . “ The off ic er’s o wn s ub

jecti ve op in io ns or b el ie fs ab ou t p ro babl e cau se are i rrel ev an t, b ecau se itis anob jecti ve st an da rd .” Id. “ Alo ng with re li ab le or c orro bo rat edti ps , th e o bs erv at io ns an d ex pe rie nc es of t he law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers work in g acas e m us t b e wei gh edas a pa rt o f th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces th atm ig htcrea te pro babl e cau se foran arre st .” Gon za le

z , 96 9 F .2dat 1 00 3. “ Whe n a n o ffi cer m ak es anarre st , whi ch is pr op erl y supp orte d b y

pro babl e cau se to arre stfora cert ai n o ffen se , nei th er h is subjec ti ve rel ia nc e o n a n o ffen se forwhi ch no pro babl e cau se ex is ts no r hi s v erb al an no un cem en ts of t he wron g o ffen se vi ti at es th e arr es t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sa un de rs , 47 6 F .2d5, 7 (5t h C ir. 1 97 3) . Fl or id a st at e law requi res th at“ ev ery own er o r pe rs on in ch arg e o f a m ot or ve hi cl e th atis op erat edor d riv enon th e ro ad s o f th is st at e sh al l re gi st er the ve hi cl e in th is st at e. . . . Areg is tra ti on is no t re qu ire d fo r an y m ot orve hi cl e th atis no t op erat edon th e ro ad s o f th is st at e dur in g t he reg is tra ti on pe rio d.” Fla . Sta t. An n. § 3 20 .02 (1 ). The d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in de nyin g Gl ov er’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s 6th e ev id en ce re co ve redfro m hi s v eh ic le ba se d o n h is all eg ed ly unl awfu l arres t. Alt ho ug h Off

ic er Bo ro s i ni ti al ly cite d Gl ov er u nd er § 32 0.0 7( 3) for dri vi ng wit ho uta ta g, atth e ti m e o f tr affi c st op he ha d s uf fic ie ntpro babl e cau se to supp ort Glo ve r’s arre stfora se co ndde gr ee m is de m ean or . Glo ve r was dri vi ng a ve hi cl e no t re gi st eredas r equi redby § 32 0.0 2( 1) ; i n fa ct , th e reg is tra ti on ha d b een can cel le d. II.

“ The Fo urth Am en dm en t g en eral ly requ ire s p ol ic e to sec ur e a warr an t be fo re co nduc ti ng a se arch .” Mar ylan d v . Dyso n , 52 7 U.S. 4 65 , 46 6, 1 19 S.Ct . 20 13 , 20 14 , 14 4 L.Ed .2d44 2 (1 99 9) . The Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atin ve nt ory se arch es , con du ct edpu rs ua ntto anest ab li sh edpro cedur e, bu t wi th ou t a warran t, on leg al ly im

po un de d v eh ic le s ar e v al idun de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t. So uth Dak ota v . Opp erman , 42 8 U.S. 3 64 , 37 2- 73 , 96 S.Ct . 30 92 , 30 98 -9 9, 4 9 L.Ed .2d 10 00 (19 76 ). In Co lo ra do v. Bert in e , th e Supr em e Co urt fu rth er ex pl ai ne d t ha t

“ [n ]oth in g . . . pro hi bi ts th e ex erci se of p ol ic e d is cret io n [i n d eci di ng to im po un d a ve hi cl e,] so l on g a s t ha t d is cret io n i s ex erci se d a cco rd in g t o s ta nd ardcri te riaan d on th e b as is of s om ethi ng othe r th ansu sp ic io n o f ev id en ce o f cri m in al act iv it y .” 47 9 U.S. 3 67 , 37 5, 1 07 S.Ct . 73 8, 7 43 , 93 L.Ed.2d73 9 (1 98 7) . Evenif a n arre st ee’s v eh ic le is no t i m pe di ng tra ffi c o r ot he rwis e p res en ti ng a ha zard , po li ce

7of

fic ers m ay

im po un d ave hi cl e, bu t the de ci si on to im po un d ave hi cl e m

us t b e m ad e in go odfai th , bas edup on st an dardcri te ria , andno t s ol el y ba se d upo n

“ su sp ic io n o f ev id en ce o f cri m in al act iv it y .” Sa mmon s v. Ta yl or , 96 7 F .2d15 33 , 15 43 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (i nv ol vi ng a 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a ct io n fo r da m ag es for un la wfu l i m

po un dm en t an d s earc h o f ve hi cl e). Add it io na ll y , if l aw en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls ha ve th e au th or ity

to co nduc t a v al idim

po un dm en t, the y

are n ot co ns ti tu ti on al ly requ ire d t o p erm itanarres te e to m ak e analt ern at iv e d is po si ti on of hi s v eh ic le . Id. Fu rth erm or e, in ve nt ory

sea rch es , inacco rd an ce wi th po li ce p ol ic y adm in is te redin go odfai th , are al so pe rm is si bl e. Bert in e , 47 9 U.S. at37 4, 1 07 S.Ct . at 7 42 . An in ve nt ory sea rch pe rm it s a t ho ro ug h s earc h o f pr op erty lawf ul ly in po li ce cu st od y , as l on g a s t ha t s earc h i s co ns is te ntwith t he po li ce ca ret ak in g fu nc ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. O’Br ya nt , 77 5 F .2d15 28 , 15 34 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). In th is co nt ex t, “ th e le gi ti m acy of th e se arch . . . turn s o n i ts reas on ab le ne ss in li gh t of th e co m m un it y care ta ki ng fun ct io ns th atall ow i nv en to ry sea rch es . . . . [T] he reas on ab le ne ss of t he in ve nt ory sea rch de pe nd s o n the pa rti cu la r fac ts an d ci rcu m st an ces .” Uni te d Sta tes v. La in g , 70 8 F .2d15 68 , 15 71 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d) . A warran tl es s i nv en to ry sea rch of a n aut om ob il e m ad e

“pu rs ua ntto st an da rdpo li ce p ro cedur es ” an d fo r th e p ur po se of “ se cu rin g o r 8pr ot ect in g t he car an d i ts co nt en ts ” is a reas on ab le po li ce i nt ru si onth atdo es no t

of fen d F ou rth Am en dm en t p rin ci pl es . Opp erman , 42 8 U.S. at37 2- 73 , 96 S.Ct . at 30 98 -9 9. Th e Supr em e Co urt h adid en ti fie d t hr ee d is ti nc t i nt eres ts th atjus ti fy th e in ve nt ory sea rch of a n aut om ob il e: (1) pro te ct io n o f th e o wne r’s pr op erty whi le it rem ai ns in po li ce cu st ody ; (2 ) pr ot ect io n o f th e p ol ic e ag ai ns t cl ai m s o r di sp ut es ov er l os t o r st ol enpro pe rty; an d (3 ) pr ot ect io n o f th e p ol ic e fro m po te nt ia l d an ge r. Id. at 3 69 , 96 S.Ct . at 3 09 7. “ An i nv en to ry sea rch is no t a s urro ga te for in ve st ig at io n, an d t he sco pe of a n i nv en to ry search m ay

no t ex ceedth atne ces sa ry to acco m pl is h t he en ds of t he in ve nt ory .” Uni te d Sta tes v. K ho ur y , 90 1 F .2d94 8, 95 8 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 0) . W e h av e h el d t ha t “ th e m ere e xp ect at io n o f un co ve rin g ev id en ce wi ll no t v it ia te anot he rwis e v al idin ve nt ory search .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Rob er so n , 89 7 F .2d10 92 , 10 96 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The go ve rn m en t h as th e b ur de n t o s ho w th e requi rem en ts of a n i nv en to ry sea rch ha ve be enm et . Sa mmon s , 96 7 F .2dat 1 54 3 (c it at io n o m it te d) . The di stric t co urt co rrec tl y he ldth atth e o ffi cers ’ de ci si on to im po un d Glo ve r’s tru ckwas v al idan d b as edon th e p ol ic e d ep art m en t’s wri tt enpo li ci es be cau se th e o ffi cers ha d n o v iabl e al te rn at iv e to im po un dm en t. Mo reo ve r, be cau se off

ic ers ha d t he au th or it y

to im po un d Gl ov er’s v eh ic le , th e subs eque nt warra nt le ss in ve nt ory

sea rch of h is ve hi cl e al so was v al id .

9AFFIR MED .

10