* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the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

### SEP 11 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. JESSE SANDOVAL,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-4101 (D.C. No. 96-CR-0010W) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and TACHA , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Defendant Jesse Sandoval entered a plea of guilty t o possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, res erving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress e vidence found in a suitcase located in a vehicle used to facilitate an illegal drug transaction. On appeal, defendant argues that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest him and his suitcase was searched illegally. We affirm

. Based on information provided by a confidential inf ormant, law enforcement officers arranged to purchase a quantity of methamphetamine. The transaction was arranged to take place in a motel i n Ogden, Utah, on March 5, 1996. Two vehicles and four or five persons were e xpected to deliver the drugs. At the appointed time, defendant arrived in one of two vehicles traveling together. While one of his companions went into the motel roo m, defendant and two others stayed outside to keep watch. After the undercoverofficers in the motel room showed the supplier the money for the methamphetami ne and tested a sample of the drug, he went back to the vehicles to get the r est of the methamphetamine. Two suppliers returned to the motel room where theywere arrested. Word was sent to officers outside the motel to arrest the ot her participants. Defendant tried to run away, but was arrested. Thereafter, the off icers impounded both vehicles and conducted an inventory search of the vehicles a nd their contents, in accordance with the Ogden City Police Department impound and inventory policy.-3-

During the inventory, methamphetamine was discovere d in a suitcase apparently belonging to defendant. Following an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate ju dge found that the officers had probable cause to arrest defendant as an aider and abetter, defendant lacked standing to challenge the impound of the veh icle, the government conceded defendant’s standing to challenge the sear ch of the suitcase, and the official impound policy permitted opening the suitc ase located in the vehicle. The magistrate judge recommended denying defendant’ s motion to suppress the methamphetamine in the suitcase. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. “In reviewing the district court’s denial of a moti on to suppress, we examine the court’s findings of fact for clear erro r, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the government, but review de nov o the reasonableness of the seizure and search.” United States v. Haro-Salcedo , 107 F.3d 769, 771 (10th Cir. 1997). It is within the district court’s province to evaluate witness credibility, to decide what weight to give to the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. See United States v. Hunnicutt , 135 F.3d 1345, 1348 (10th Cir. 1998). Defendant claims the arresting officers lacked prob able cause to arrest him because he was merely present at the scene of a cri me. He also challenges the-4-

inventory search of his suitcase located in the veh icle, claiming that because the officers did not have probable cause to arrest him, the vehicle should not have been impounded and subsequently subjected to an inv entory search.

A warrantless arrest for a felony normally is permi ssible as long as the arresting officer has probable cause. The proper probable cause inquiry asks whether at the time of the arres t the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the arrestee had comm itted or was committing an offense. Probable cause can rest upo n the collective knowledge of the police, rather than solely on thatof the officer who actually makes the arrest. United States v. Klein , 93 F.3d 698, 701 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotations and citations omitted). After carefully reviewing the record, we hold that the authorities had probable cause to arrest defendant. He had arrived at the motel with the person who carried the drugs into the motel room, he had c onferred and congregated with the other participants in the drug transaction, he had conducted countersurveillance to facilitate the illegal transaction, and he had attempted to run away from the scene when police officers made themselves known. Defendant’s actions demonstrated that he had willfully “associate[d] himself with the criminal venture and [sought] to make it succeed through some action on his part.” United States v. McKneely , 69 F.3d 1067, 1072 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Esparsen , 930 F.2d 1461, 1470 (10th Cir. 1991)). Defendant ’s conduct was-5-

sufficient for a prudent officer to believe that he was aiding and abetting the illegal drug transaction. See id. Defendant next argues that the search of the suitca se without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The governme nt conceded that defendant had standing to challenge the search of the suitcas e, but argued that the search was a proper inventory search. “An inventory search is a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, designed to ef fect three purposes: protection of the owner’s property, protection of the police against claims of lost or stolen property, and protection of the police fr om potential danger.” Haro-Salcedo , 107 F.3d at 772 (citations omitted). To be reaso nable under the Fourth Amendment, an inventory search must be condu cted according to standardized procedures. See id. Police officers may search closed containers in an impounded vehicle pursuant to sufficiently regul ated inventory procedures.
See Colorado v. Bertine , 479 U.S. 367, 374-75 (1987). The official inventory search procedure in his case required that all closed containers located in an impounded vehicle be opene d. We conclude that the procedure was sufficiently standardized and regulat ed to meet constitutional requirements. Accordingly, the inventory search of defendant’s suitcase did not violate the Fourth Amendment.-6-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Utah is
AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge