* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 11 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. CATHERINE A. KARAFA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-1194 (D.C. No. 95-CR-299-B) (D. Colo.)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P.34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Catherine A. Karafa entered a conditional guilty pl ea to a charge of possession of a mixture or substance containing a d etectable amount of-2-

methamphetamine after her motion to suppress was de nied. On appeal, she asserts that the stop of her car and seizure of a b ox found in her vehicle was not supported by probable cause. We disagree and affir m. We review a district court’s probable cause determi nation de novo. Ornelas v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1663 (1996); United States v. Ni elsen , 9 F.3d 1487, 1489 (10th Cir. 1993). However we “review fi ndings of historical fact only for clear error and . . . give due weight to infere nces drawn from those facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers. ” Ornelas , 116 S. Ct. at 1663. “Probable cause to search a vehicle is established if, under the ‘totality of the circumstances ,’ there is a ‘fair probability’ that the car conta ins contraband . . . .” Nielsen , 9 F.3d at 1489-90 (quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). The district court’s ruling was based on the follow ing fact findings. Pursuant to a police investigation, officers of the Denver Police Department obtained a warrant to search the residence of Debor ah Martinez at 3430 Clay Street in Denver. Officers had previously arrangeda small buy from Ms. Martinez. The search revealed over six ounces of m ethamphetamine and a quantity of cash. After Ms. Martinez was arrested, she agreed to reveal her source of the drug. In return, the police agreed t hat she would not have to spend the night in jail and that her cooperation would be made known to the prosecuting authorities. Ms. Martinez identified Ms. Karafa as her source, stating that she had-3-

bought methamphetamine from Ms. Karafa for over a y ear and owed her $22,000. A background check of Ms. Karafa revealed a historyof narcotics transactions. Pursuant to the agreement, Ms. Martinez called Ms. Karafa and set up a controlled buy. In the call, which was monitored a nd recorded, Ms. Martinez said she wanted to buy a larger amount than previously, and Ms. Karafa indicated, in a jargon explained to the police by Ms. Martinez, that she would be able to conduct a transaction. In a second call they arranged, aga in in jargon, for a purchase of two pounds and agreed to meet at a parking lot. Ms . Martinez was searched, fitted with a body wire, and driven to the meeting by the police. Ms. Martinez told police that Ms. Karafa would arri ve in one of two vehicles, one of which was a green Chevrolet El Cam ino. Police surveillance observed the green El Camino arrive. Ms. Karafa wa s driving and had a large dog in the cab with her. Ms. Martinez and Ms. Karafa h ad a conversation which was monitored by the police, in which Ms. Karafa said s he did not want to do the deal there. Instead, they agreed to meet at Ms. Martine z’ residence at 3430 Clay, a short distance away. Ms. Martinez did not want to ride in the cab with the dog or in the truck bed and accordingly did not leave with Ms. Karafa in the El Camino. Ms. Martinez subsequently told the agent monitoring her that Ms. Karafa had the drugs with her. The district court found as a matt er of fact that Ms. Karafa had made this fact known to Ms. Martinez either implici tly or explicitly during their-4-

conversation. The monitoring officer told the othe r members of the surveillance team and a decision was made to request uniformed o fficers to stop the El Camino. Ms. Karafa was stopped about one block from the Clay Street address. When the surveillance officers arrived, she was standing outside the vehicle in the custody of the uniformed officers. As Detective Fo untain approached Ms. Karafa, he saw a box about the size of a shoebox in the bed of her truck in plain view and picked it up. The district court found that Detect ive Fountain then requested and received permission from Ms. Karafa to search the truck and the box. The box contained methamphetamine. Ms. Karafa was arrested at that time. The district court concluded that the totality of t he circumstances gave the officers probable cause to stop the vehicle and to seize the box. We agree. The existence of probable cause is a common sense, prac tical inquiry. Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 230 (1983). We must assess the cir cumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enfo rcement, and assess probabilities in light of the particular factual co ntext. Id. at 232. The circumstances in the instant case clearly warra nted the belief by an objectively reasonable officer that the El Camino a nd any box in it contained methamphetamine. The police had monitored Ms. Mart inez and had observed Ms. Karafa behaving as Ms. Martinez predicted she would . We do not agree with Ms.-5-

Karafa’s contention that Ms. Martinez had an incent ive to mislead the police; on the contrary, after her arrest she had every reason to provide the police with valuable assistance in order to obtain more favorab le treatment for herself. We also disagree with Ms. Karafa’s contention the district court clearly erred in finding that Ms. Martinez was told either implicitl y or explicitly that Ms. Karafa had the drugs with her. Ms. Martinez had no reasonto mislead the police in this regard, knowing that she and Ms. Karafa were under surveillance and the police had set up the transaction in an attempt to obtain evidence against Ms. Karafa. When the circumstances here are viewed in a practic al, common sense manner, a fair probability existed that the truck and/or the box contained methamphetamine. Accordingly, the conviction is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge