# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 37 05

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mei ge l M . Crad do ck

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 22 , 20 16

Fil ed : No ve m

be r 8, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, MELLOY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Afte r a ju r y t r i al

, Mei ge l Crad do ck was co nv ic te d of be in g a fel on in

po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 9 2 2 ( g )(1 ). Crad do ck was

se nt en ced to a m an da to ry m in im um of fif te en y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t un de r th e Arm ed

Care er Cri m in al Act (“ ACCA”)

, 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). Crad do ck m ak es two arg um en ts

on ap pe al : (1 ) th e Ter ry fri sk th at le d to hi s arre st ex ceed ed it s pr op er sc op e, an d (2 )hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r Mi ss ou ri bu rg la ry do es no t qu al ify as a pr ed ic at e of fen se

un de r t h e A CCA. Fo r th e reas on s di sc us se d be lo w, we rev ers e as to th e fir st is su e

an d d o n ot reac h t he sec on d.

I.

A few m in ut es be fo re 11 :0 0 a.m

. on Nov em be r 20

, 20 13

, Offi ce r C h a r l e s

Pri ch ard of th e Kan sa s Ci ty P o l i c e D ep art m en t was st op pe d at a st op si gn whe n he

ob se rv ed a gr een Po nt ia c en te r th e in te rs ect io n an d sl o w d o wn as if to tu rn in hi s

di rect io n. In st ead

, th e Po nt ia c he si ta te d fo r a few m om en ts be fo re pr oceed in g st rai gh t

th ro ug h th e in te rs ect io n. Fi nd in g th is be ha vi or su sp ic io us , Offi cer Pri ch ard cal le d in

t he Po nt ia c’s li cen se pl at e nu m be r an d di sc ov ered th at th e ve hi cl e was st ol e n

. H e

fo ll owe d th e ve hi cl e bu t lo st si gh t of it whe n i t t u r n e d do wn a si de st reet

. Offi cer

Pri ch ard th en pr oc eed ed to dr iv e up an d do wn ne arb y st reet s lo ok in g fo r th e ve hi cl e.

A t ap pr ox im at el y 11 :0 6 a.m ., Offi cer Pri ch ard no ti ced a m an la te r id en t i f i e d a s

Crad do ck walk in g do wn th e si de walk o f o n e of th e si de st reet s. Offi cer Pri ch ard

di sc ov ered th e s t o l en Po nt ia c pa rk ed on th e si de of th e st reet sh or tl y aft er pa ss in g

Crad do c k

, a t w h ic h po in t Pri ch ard tu rn ed aro un d in or de r to rel oc at e Crad do ck

. Driv in g ba ck up th e st reet

, Offi cer Pri ch ard sa w Crad do ck st an di ng in th e fro nt y ard

of a res id en ce ab ou t fif

ty feet fro m th e st ol en Po nt ia c. Offi cer Pri ch ard di d no t no ti ce

an y ot he r pe op le in th e are a.

Offi cer Pri ch ard pa rk ed hi s ve hi cl e an d ap pr oa ch ed Crad do ck

. W he n Offi cer

Pri ch ard a sk ed Crad do ck wha t he was do in g, Crad do ck ap pe ared ne rv ou s an d sa id

he was go in g ho m e, bu t he c o u ld no t pr ov id e Offi cer Pri ch ard wit h an ad dr es s.

Bel ie vi ng th at Crad do ck ha d jus t ex it e d t h e st ol en Po nt ia c, Offi cer Pri ch ard

ha nd cu ffed Crad do ck an d fri sk ed hi m fo r a weap on

. The fri s k d i d n o t r ev eal a

weap on , bu t Off

i cer Pri ch ard di d feel wha t he be li ev ed to be a ve hi cl e ke y fo b in

Crad do ck ’s pa nt s po ck et

. Offi cer Pri ch ard rem ov ed th e ke y fo b fro m th e po ck et an d,

aft er no ti ci ng th at it ha d a Po nt ia c em bl em , us ed it to un lo ck th e st ol en Po nt ia c. Afte r

-2

-op en in g th e do or of th e ve hi cl e, Offi cer Pri ch ard sa w a ha nd gu n on th e flo or ne xt to

t h e d r i v er’s se at

. Upo n le arn in g th at Crad do ck was a co nv ic te d fel on , Offi ce r

Pri ch ard arre st ed hi m fo r po ss es si ng a ha nd gu n. Crad do ck ’s DNA was la te r m at ch ed

to DNA di sc ov ered on th e ve hi cl e st eeri ng whe el

, bu t in su ffi ci en t DNA was pr es en t

on th e h an dg un for it to be tes te d.

On Decem

be r 11

, 20 13

, Crad do ck was in di ct ed on on e co un t of be in g a fel on

in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Crad do ck m ov ed to

su pp res s th e ev id en ce r e s u l t i n g fro m th e fri sk of hi s pe rs on an d th e rem ov al of th e

ke y fo b fro m hi s po ck et

. The di st ric t c o u rt de ni ed th e m ot io n, an d a jury

su bs eq ue nt ly ret ur ne d a gu il ty ve rd ic t. Afte r de te rm in in g th at Crad do ck qu al ifi ed as

an arm ed care er cri m in al

, th e co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 25 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d

fiv e y ears of s up erv is ed rel eas e.

II

.

“ W he n co ns id eri ng a su pp res si on or de r, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l

fin di ng s for clea r erro r an d rev ie w de no vo it s con cl us io n abo ut whe th er the Fo ur th

Am en dm en t was vi ol at ed du rin g th e se arch .” Uni te d St at es v. Ja ni s , 38 7 F.3 d 68 2,

68 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). As an in it ia l m at te r, Crad do ck ’s pr ox im it y to th e st ol en ve hi cl e

an d hi s de m ean or whe n Offi cer Pri ch ard ap pr oa ch ed hi m pr ov id ed th e of fic e r wit h

reas on ab le su sp ic io n to fri sk Crad do ck fo r weap on s. Se e Ter ry v. Ohi o , 39 2 U.S. 1,

30 (1 9 68 ); Uni te d St at es v. Han lo n , 40 1 F.3 d 92 6, 92 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ [W] he n

of fic ers en co un te r su sp ect ed car th ie ve s, th ey al so m ay reas on ab ly su sp ect th at su ch

in di vi du al s ‘m ig ht po ss es s weap on s.’” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Row la nd

, 34 1 F.3 d

77 4, 7 84 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) )).

Howev er, in or de r to se iz e it em s ot he r th an weap on s, “ th e of fic er con du ct in g

a pa t-d own se arch [m

us t] ha ve pr o b a b l e cau se to be li ev e th e it em in pl ai n to uc h is

in cri m in at in g ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Bus to s- To rr es , 39 6 F.3 d 93 5, 94 4- 45 (8 th

-3

-Ci r. 20 05 ) (ci ti ng Min ne so ta v. Dick er so n , 50 8 U.S. 36 6, 37 6 (1 99 3) ). The it em ne ed

no t b e co nt rab an d, b ut “ [t]o gi ve ris e to pr ob ab le cau se , th e in cri m in at in g c ha ract er

of th e ob ject m us t be im m ed ia te ly id en ti fia bl e.” Bus to s- To rr es , 39 6 F.3 d at 94 5; se e

al so Uni te d St at es v. Co wa n , 67 4 F.3 d 94 7

, 9 5 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ A po li ce of fic er

‘lawfu ll y pa t[t in g] do wn a su sp ect ’s ou te r cl ot hi ng ’ m ay se iz e an y ‘objec t who se

co nt ou r or m as s m ak es it s id en ti ty im m ed ia te ly ap pa ren t’ as in cri m in at in g ev id en ce.”
(q uo ti ng Dick

er so n , 50 8 U.S. at 37 5) (al te rat io ns in or ig in al )). Ult im at el y , “ an it em ’s

in cri m in at or y na tu re is im m ed ia te ly ap pa ren t if th e of fic er at th at m om en t ha d

‘pro ba bl e cau se to as so ci at e th e pr op ert y wit h cri m in al act iv it y ’

. . . m e a ni ng ‘the

fact s av ai la bl e to th e of

fic er wou ld warra nt a m an of reas on ab le cau ti on in th e be li ef

th at cert ai n it em s m ay be co nt rab an d or st ol en pr op ert y or us efu l as e v i d e n c e o f a

cri m e.’” Co wa n , 67 4 F.3 d at 95 3 (q uo ti ng Texa s v. Bro wn , 46 0 U.S. 73 0, 7 4 1

- 42
(1 98 3) (p lu ral it y op in io n) ). Pro ba bl e cau se req ui res on ly “ a ‘pract ic al

, no nt ech ni cal ’

pr ob ab il it y th at in cri m in at in g ev id en ce is in vo lv ed ,” id

. (q uo ti ng Bro wn , 46 0 U.S. at

74 2)

, bu t th e of

fic er m ay no t m an ip ul at e th e it em in or de r to as cert ai n th e

in cri m in at in g cha ract er where it is no t im m ed ia te ly ap pa ren t to hi m , se e Dick er so n , 50 8 U.S. at 37 9.

In th is cas e, th e ke y fo b’s in cri m in at in g ch arac te r was n o t i mm e d ia te ly

ap pa ren t up on pl ai n feel

. Offi cer Pri ch ard te st ifi ed t h a t h e was no t ab le to ob se rv e

th e pe rs on dr iv in g th e car or ev en id en ti fy whe th er th e in di vi du al was m al e or fem al e.

Offi cer Pri ch ard di d no t ob se rv e Crad do ck ex it th e ve hi cl e, an d Offi cer Pri ch ard ha d

to tu rn hi s pa tro l car aro un d se ve ral ti m es in or de r to lo cat e Crad do ck , who di d n ot

at te m pt to fle e. W hi le Crad d o c k was rel at iv el y cl os e to th e st ol en ve hi cl e an d

be ha vi ng ne rv ou sl y, c i r c um st an ces whi ch m ak e th is qu es ti on cl os e, feel in g an

un id en ti fie d ke y fo b in Crad do ck ’s po ck et di d no t pr ov id e Offi cer Pri ch ard wit h

pr ob ab le cau se to co nc lu de th at th e ke y fo b be lo ng ed to th e st ol en Po nt ia c. Key fo bs

are ex tre m el y co m

m on it em s carr ie d in th e po ck et s of a la rg e po rti on of th e

po pu la ti on on a da il y ba si s. As a res ul t, wit ho ut m or e in fo rm at io n, Offi cer Pri ch ard

co ul d no t ha ve reas on ab ly as so ci at ed th e ke y fo b wit h th e st ol en Po nt ia c at th at po in t.

-4

-Se e Uni te d St a t e s v

. Ba i le y , 41 7 F.3 d 87 3, 87 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at a

hu nc h is in su ffi ci en t to pr ov id e reas on ab le su sp ic io n, m uc h le ss pr ob ab le cau se ). It

was no t un ti l Offi cer Pri ch ard rem o v e d th e ke y fo b fro m Crad do ck ’s po ck et an d

ob se rv ed th e Po nt ia c em

bl em th at he ha d reas on to as so ci at e th e k e y f o b wit h th e

st ol en ve hi cl e. Thu s, as in Min ne so ta v. Dick er so n , th e of

fic e r r eq ui red “ a fu rth er

se arch

, on e no t au th or iz ed by Ter ry o r b y a n y o th er ex cep ti on to th e warra nt

req ui rem en t” to de te rm in e th e it em ’s in cri m in a t in g ch arac te r. 50 8 U.S. at 37 9.

Acco rd in gl y , th e k ey

fob ’s sei zu re v io la te d t he Fo ur th Am en dm en t.

Th e G o v ern m en t rai se s se ve ral co un te rarg um en ts to su pp res si on

. Fi rs t, it

arg ue s th at Crad do ck ha d no reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy in th e st ol en ke y fo b,

th e st ol en car, or th e ha nd gu n. W hi le Crad do ck ha d no reas on ab le ex pe c t a t i o n of

pr iv acy in th e st ol en ve hi cl e or co nt rab an d, se e Uni te d St at es v. Lo ng , 79 7 F.3 d 55 8,

56 8 (8t h Cir. 20 15 ), he di d ha ve a reas on ab le ex pe ct at io n of pri va cy in th e co nt en ts

of hi s p an ts po ck et s. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. $ 53 ,08 2 i n U.S . Cur re nc y , 98 5 F.2 d 2 45

, 24 9 (6 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (fi nd in g an ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy “ in it em s car r i e d o n on e’s

pe rs on ”). Seco nd

, th e Gov ern m en t co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce is ad m is si bl e un de r th e

in ev it ab le di sc ov ery do ct rin e. The in ev it ab le di sc ov ery do ct rin e pr ov id es an

ex cep ti on to th e ex cl us io na ry ru le whe re “ th e pr os ecu ti on can es ta bl is h by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev i d e n c e th at th e in fo rm at io n ul ti m at el y or in ev it ab ly wou ld

ha ve be en di sc ov ered by lawfu l m ean s.” Ni x v. W il li ams , 46 7 U.S. 43 , 4 44 (1 98 4)

. Alt h o u gh th e Gov ern m en t arg ue s th at th e po li ce wou ld ha ve in ev it ab ly di sc ov ered

th e co nt e n ts of th e st ol en ve hi cl e, th e Gov ern m en t do es no t co nt en d th at th e po li ce

wou ld ha ve in ev it ab ly di sc ov ered th e ke y fo b in Crad do ck ’s po ck et

. Acco rd in gl y , in ev it ab le di s c o ve ry ha s no be ari ng on whe th er th e ke y fo b sh ou ld ha ve be en

su pp res se d. To th e ex te nt th e in ev it ab le di sc ov ery do ct rin e ap pl ie s to ev id en ce ot he r

th an th e ke y fo b, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t a d d r e s s th e qu es ti on , an d we de cl in e to

de ci de it in th e fi rs t i ns ta nc e.

-5

-Acco rd in gl y , th e of fic er’s se iz ur e of th e ke y fo b ex c e e d e d th e ap pr op ria te

sc op e of a Ter ry fri sk

, an d it sh ou ld ha ve be en su pp res se d. As a res u l t

, w e d o n o t

reac h C rad do ck ’s sen te nc in g c ha ll en ge

.

II I.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, w e va cat e Crad do ck ’s co nv ic ti on an d rem an d fo r

pr oc eed in gs no t i nc on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-