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
2-2-2004 

# U S A v . P r in gle
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 . 03-1782

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 . P r in gle " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1034. 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_2004/1034NOT PRE CEDENT IAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
NO. 03-1782
UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. TYRONE PRINGLE a/ k/ a D I GGU MS Tyrone Pringle, Appellant

On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court For the East ern District of Pennsy lvania (D.C. Crim. Action No. 01-cr -00049) Distri ct Judge: Honorable James T. Giles
Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

January 27, 2004 BE FO RE : NY GA AR D, F UE NT ES and ST AP LE TO N, Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led Februar

y 2, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

ST AP LE TO N, Circuit

Judge : Tyrone Pringle was i ndicte d for posses sion of a firearm by a convict ed felon, in viol ation of

28 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1). He entered a condi tionalguilt y pl ea, pre serv ing his ri ght to ra ise o n ap pea l the d enia l of h is m otio n to sup pre ss ev iden ce. Pringl e was sentence d to a te rm of impris onment of 46 months, followed by 3 year s of supervi sed rel ease, a

$1,000 fine , and a spec ial a ssessment of $100. Narcotic s officer s, executing a search warrant on aresi dence, spot ted Pringl e sitting in a car out side t he resi dence. Alt

hough Pringl e was not the t arget of the search or asso ciated with the pre mises , the po lice ord ered h im ou t of the car fo r a patdown search and found a gun i n his waist band. The is sue on appeal is whether the poli ce ha d r ea so na bl e s us pi cio n f or th e p at- do w n s ea rc h a s re qu ire d b y Terr y v. O hio , 392 U.S . 1 (1968). I.

Defense counsel a ccurat ely summarizes t

he evidence at the s uppressi on hearing an d the D istrict Court’s findings in the following mann er.

On June 22, 2000, at

about 8:00 a .m., Sergeant Adam Sendek of the Chester Police Department nar cotic s unit was drivi ng around the c ity of Chester, Pennsylvania, with a confi dentia l infor mant who was pointing out locat ions i n the ci ty

where drug deali ng and other c riminalacti vity was taking pl ace. Sendek had worked wit h the informant

for about five years, and during t hat time period this i nformant had gi ven3

inform ation le ading to seizu re of c ontrab and, a rrest an d con viction on f ive or s ix occasions . As they

drove by

the are a of Seventh and Ll oyd Streets , the informant brought up Pringl e’s name, which Sendek alr eady kne w. The informant s aid that he had see n Pringl e at about

2:00 a. m. or 3:00 a .m. t hat same morni ng carrying a big a utomati c pist ol at S eve nth and Llo yd Str eets . Th e inform ant a lso s aid P ring le ca rried the g un “ 24/ 7,” meaning that

he kept the gun on him allthe time. (App. at 40a.) The i nformant di d not explai n, however, how he knew Pringle car ried t he gun all the time, or how frequent ly he had seen him with a gun. He also di d not speci fy where Pr ingle c arri ed the gun. Sendek passed the informa tion about P ringle on to O fficer D avid Tyler.

Later t hat same day , Tyl er rece ived unrel ated i nformati on from another source about

drug dealing by an i ndividualliving in the s econd floor rear apartment at 3010 West Ninth Str eet i n Chester. Based on this informat ion, Ty ler obt ained a se arch warrant for

that a partment . Pri ngle was not a t arget of this invest igati on. At 8:48 p.m. that even ing, Tyler, Sendek , and abo ut eight other officers went to 3010 West Nint h Street to execut e the warrant. Ty ler and Sende k arri ved in a van driven by

Sendek, and t

hey appr oached the r esidence from the back al ley because the entranc e to the second floor apartment

was in the r ear. As Ty ler got out of the van, he saw to h is left that there was a car parked on the pro perty with a person in the driver’s seat. Tyle r shine d his fl ashli ght at t he car and saw Pringle i nside. Tyle r tes tifi ed that as he shined hi s li ght on Pri ngle, “his ey es widened like he was real ly surpri sed to se e me.”4

(App. at 27a. ) Tyl er went up to t he car and knocked on t he window, indi cati ng that Pringl e should r oll i t down. Pri ngle compli ed. Ty ler as ked Pringl e if he had a gun on him. Pri ngle hesi tate d about fi ve seconds and t he said, “No.” (App. at 27a.) Ty ler ordered Pr ingle out

of the car

so as to c onduct a pat -down search. As Pringle was get ting out of th e ca r, Tyle r star ted to con duc t the p at-d ow n se arch , plac ing his h and s on Prin gle. Sen dek a t this mo men t was appr oach ing the car, an d Prin gle blu rted ou t, “Sen dek, I g ot a gun in my l eft waist .” (App. at 28a. ) Sendek pull ed the gun out of Pringl e’s waist

band and Tyl er plac ed him under ar rest . Tyl er tes tifi ed that his deci sion t o conduct the search was based on the i nformati on from the i nformant that Pri ngle was carr yi ng a gun, pl us the facts t hat Pri ngle’s eyes “widened” when he shined t he light on him and that

he hesit ated when asked if he had a gun.

The D istrict Court denied the motion to su ppress, ruling that the informan t’s tip t hat Pri ngle was carr

yi ng a gun was not old or stal e informat ion and that the informant was reli able. The court al so found that the offi cer’s suspici ons were height ened by Pring le’s reac tion of

wid ening his eyes w hen th e light w as shin ed on him, a nd h is hesitation befo re saying he did no t have a gu n. The co urt further fou nd that the officers “ha d a rig htto pat

down anyone for

whom t hey hadth atki nd o f i nfo rma ti on f ro m a confident ial informant or f rom some other s ource that the pe rson might be armed to pat the person dow n for their ow n safety in the execu tion of the w arrant.” (App . at 62a.) Lastly , the court found t he gun was actual ly

found as a res ult of Pringle’ s stat ement that5

he had a gun, made during Pringl e’s det ention. II. We agree with the Distri ct Court. The informati on possesse d by t he officer s at t

he time of t

he pat-down sear ch clear ly consti tuted “ reasonabl e suspic ion” under Terr

y v. O hio , 392 U.S. 1 ( 1968), and Ada ms v . W illiams , 407 U .S. 143 (197 2), even if some of i t is regarded a s capable of innocent inter pretation. The officers knew that Pri ngle was a convi cted fel on and that he was repo rted by a c onf

identia l inform ant to c arry a large autom atic pisto l all the tim e and to have been seen wit

h it in his poss ession e arli er in t he day. The reli ability

of the i nformant was vouched for because he was personal ly known to the offi cers, had worked with the m over a peri od of five y ears, and had provide d informat ion that led to t he arres t and
conv iction o f narc otics de alers o n nu mero us oc casion s. The offic ers w ent to c ond uct a search for

drug activity

and found Pringl e sit

ting out side t

he suspect ed locat ion in a parked car . Pri ngle’s eyes widened when he saw the offic ers, and he hesit ated for five
seco nds w hen a sked wh ether h e had a gun . Thu s, the tota lity of circum stance s clearly ju sti fie d a pr ot ec tiv e s ea rc h f or th e o ff

ice rs’ sa fe ty. The judgment of the Distr ict Court will be a ffirmed.

/s/ Walter K. St aplet on Circuit Judge