FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT APRI L18, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

The Honor able John F. Nang le, Senior United States District Judge f or the Ea stern * District of Missouri, sitti ng by desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 04- 1122 0
D.C. Dock et No. 0 3- 00 35 7- CR-J -NE UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JANIC E JOSEPHINE ROGERS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r t h e N o r t h e rn D i s t r i c t o f

A l ab a ma (Apr il 18, 200 5)
Before BL ACK

and W IL SO N, Circ ui t Judg es, and NA NG LE , S enior District Judge.

* PE R CU RIA M:2 I. In tr od uc ti on D ef en da nt J an ic e Ro ge rs , c onvi ct ed of pos se ssi ng w ith the int en t t o distribu te in excess of five gra m s of m etham phetam ine in vio lation of 21 U.S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ) an d ( b) (1 )( B) , appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of he r m oti on t o supp ress a sea rch of her

person. W e re verse. II. St andard of Re view Thi s c ou r t r e vi e w s qu e st i on s of l a w r e gar di ng a di str i c t c ou r t ’ s de ni al of a
m ot io n to sup pr es s de novo
. U nit ed Sta te s v . R hin d , 28 9 F
. 3d 69 0, 69 3 ( 11th Cir. 20 02 ). Fi nd in gs of f

act are re vi ewed forcle ar er ro r. U nit ed Sta te s v . G il , 204 F
. 3d 1347 , 1350 (11th Cir. 2000). III . F ac ts On A ugus t 1 8 , 2 000, a sear ch wa rrant w as issued for the residence of H al Atchley
. (RII -45 at 4) Pr ior to condu cting the search, the officer s wer e advised that Atch le y ha d a hi st or y

of v io le nc e an d re si st in g a rres t. Id

. a t 4- 5. The officer s wer e also told that Atchley ’ s girlfriend, ostensibly defendant Rogers, m ight b e present at the sc en e of

the se ar ch
. ( RI I- 45 a t 4) U pon ar ri ving at Atchl ey ’ s tr ai le r, the of fi ce rs kno ck ed

but r ec ei ve d no
res po ns e. Id

. a t 6. T he of

fi ce rs the n en te re d the tr ai le r an d en co unt er ed Ro ge rs , w ho
was in th e b ed ro om . Id

. R oge rs w as im

m ed ia te ly or de re d do w n a t gu npoi nt and3

ha nd cu ffed forth e o ffi cers ’ sa fet y . Id

. Of ficer Te rry McCr ackin observed a “ large bulge” in defendant’ s pocket an d pr oc ee de d to r ea ch dir ec tly int o de fe nda nt’ s poc ke ts an d r em ove the bul ge a lon g w ith th e o th er c on te nt s o f de fen da nt ’s po ck et s, l ay in g t he it em s o n t he be d. Id

. Mc Cr ac kin test ifi ed

tha t he ha d no t f

orm ed a ny opi nio n a s to w ha t t he bul ge w as , tha t he ha d no id ea

w he the r it w as agun or kni fe or pos ed a ny thr ea t t o hi m , but thou ght it was a “ poss ibility .” Id

. at 11-12. H e also te stified, however, that he had been invol ved in ov er one hundred searches of m etham p h etam ine labs and had le arne d t o a n t i c i p a t e an u m b e r o f r i s k s , i n c l u d i n g b o o b y

t r ap s , c h e m i c a l s , a nd weap on s. Id

. at

9- 10. T he it em s r em ove d f

ro m de fe nda nt’ s po ck et s in cl ud ed tw o in div idu al ly
w ra ppe d pa ck ag es in bla ck

e le ctri ca l t ap e, c om

pa ra ble in siz e to a

c iga re tte li ght er

but sl ig ht ly big ge r in wid th , con ta in in g p il ls an d a po wde ry su bs ta nc e. Id

. a t 9. T he
su bs ta nc es were la te r te st ed an d fo un d t o b e m et ha m ph et am in e. Id

. T he of

fi ce rs did not f ind am etha m

phe ta m ine la

b on the pr em ise s, but

the y did f ind abur n pi le w ith fu el c an s a nd t

ube s be hin d th e tr ai le r. ( RI II -4 5 a t 91 -9 2) Ro ge rs w as ind ic te d on A ugus t 4, 200 3 ( RI -1 ) an d f ile d he r m oti on t o su

ppr es s on A ugus t 14 , 200 3. ( RI -7 ) T he dis tr ic t co urt ini tia lly de cl ine d to pe rm it the use of the evidence under a Te rry -stop theory
. (RI- 45 at 21-22 ) Se e Te rryv . O hio , 392 U.S
.4

1, 88 S. Ct. 186 8, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). The prosecutor sug gested, however , that the evidence wa s also per m issib ly seized under U

nit ed Sta te s v . Young , 909 F
. 2d 4 42 (1 1th Ci r. 199 0) , a nd t he dis tr ic t c ourt e ve ntu al ly a ll owe d th e ev ide nc e, w ith the fo llo w ing dis cu ssi on:

W ell, I 'll tell y ou it's a tou gh qu estion because Ybarr a is not r igh t on p oin t a nd Young

is not r igh t onpoi nt. A nd G ray , the United States v. G ray , w hic h th e E le ve nth Ci rc uit c ite s in Young , is not

r igh t onpoi nt. I'm goin g to deny the m otion based on e verything I' v e h eard today
. All right. I'll - based on the reading of t hese three ca ses together, I' m goi ng t o de ny

the m oti on. The E leventh Circuit is pretty - althoug h in the Young

case they en de d up t a l ki ng abo ut e xi ge nt c i r c um st a nc e s, a nd I do no t f ind th at here, they

still refer

to the diss entin g o p i n i o n of Ybarr a a nd r ef er to Gray , w h i c h d e a l t w i t h s e a r c h i n g a j a c k e t
. S o I ' m g o i n g t o d e nythe m oti on. (R I- 45 a t 24 ) IV . D isc us sio n In Te rryv . O hio , the S upr em e Co urt he ld p er m iss ib le und er

the F ourth A m en dm en t an off

ic er ’ s patd ow n of per sons he ha d r ea sona ble a rt ic ula

ble sus pic ion
w er e ar m ed a nd p ose d athr ea t t o the of fi ce r. 392 U
. S. 1, 29- 30, 88 S
. Ct
. 186 8, 188 4 (1 9 6 8 ). Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt i n t h i s ca s e m ad e an ex p re s s fi n d i n g t h at t h e g o v er n m en t ’s evidence did not establish th e basis for a Te rrypatdown, stating t h at t he officer

“ didn’ t f ri sk her unt il af

te r she w as ha ndc uf

fe d ..
. . I ha ve n’ t he ar d of

a ny pe rc ei vable da nge r fr om

the gov er

nm en t’ s proof. ” (R I- 45 a t 21 ) T he c ourt t he n de ci de d to5

“ sc ra tc h Ter ry ... [as] not appli cable. ” Id

. at 22. T he dis tr ic t co urt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s
we re not clear

err or. Ac cording l y , the search of Rogers w as not perm issib le under Te rry . A ppe lle e’ s r el ia nc e on Young is unf ound ed as w el l. In Young , this Court pe rm itt ed the se ar ch of

apur se due to exi ge nt c ir cu m sta nc es , w hic h a re not pr es en t in th is cas e. Se e Young , 909 F
. 2d a t 44 3- 44. A s f or the r el at ion shi p te st d isc uss ed in dic tain Young , a lth ough w e m ay ch oose to app ly tha t tes t in a fu tur e ca se , the f ac ts of thi s c as e do not len d them se lve s to its a ppl ic at ion be ca

use the se ar ch he re w as of a p ers on rat he r th an of t he pe rs on ’s effec ts
. Se e id. a t 44 4- 45. V . C on cl us ion Thus, w e REV ERS E the dis tr ic t co urt' s de nia l of Ro ge rs ’ Mo tio n to S uppr es s
an d REMAND the c as e to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or fu rthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w ith thi s op ini on .