FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 58 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 01 13 -WSD-ECS-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, vers us TIMOTHY D. DAV IS, D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 25 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Tim ot hy D. Davi s ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s af te r pl ead in g g ui lt y

un de r a p le a ag reem en t t o b ei ng a co nv ic te d fe lo n i n p os se ss io n o f a fi rearm , 18 U.S.C.§ 9 22 (g )(1 ), an d p os se ss in g ast ol enfir earm , 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (j). He cha ll en ge s 1 th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l, i n p art , of h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce, co nt en di ng th atth e co urt erredinfin di ng th atpro babl e cau se ex is te d t o a rres t h im forop en in g orco ns um in g a n a lc oh ol ic be ve rag e wit hi n 1 00 feetof ast or e se ll in g s uc h be ve rag es inpa ck ag e fo rm , invi ol at io n o f Atl an taCo de § 1 0- 7( a). He arg ue s t ha t be cau se th ere was no pro babl e cau se forth atarre st , th e two gu ns di sc ov eredon hi s pe rs on du rin g asearch in ci de ntto hi s arres t an d t he po st -Mi ran da st at em en ts he 2 m ad e to law en fo rcem en t ag en ts were i na dm is si bl e. I. At the supp res si onhe ari ng be fo re the m ag is tra te jud ge , th e g ov ern m en t cal le d S en io r Offi cer C hr is to ph er Lan ie r of th e Atl an taPo li ce Dep art m en t t o te st ify abo utth e ci rcu m st an ces of Da vi s’ arres t. Lan ie r, who is ass ig ne d t o a st reet -le ve l p ol ic e dru g u ni t, s ta te d t ha t h e an d t hr ee fe ll ow o ffi cers ha d b een pa tro ll in g o ne of t he ir r eg ul ar ar eas when th ey pu ll edin to th e p ark in g l otof a co m m erci al sh op pi ng cen te r. Lani er s aw se ve ral pe op le , in cl ud in g Dav is , st an di ng infro ntof t he “ OldSim ps onRo adSto re,” a p ack ag e st or e. The g ro up
The plea agree ment was c onditional in that itallowed Da vis to appeal the de nial of his 1 motion to s uppress e vidence . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.C t. 1602 (1966). 2 2was dri nk in g, an d Lan ie r fo cu se d o n Dav is , who was s om e 2 0 t o 3 0 yards away

an d h ol di ng a “ lo ng , sl en de r” co lo red -g la ss bo tt le , whi chwas “ pr et ty obv io us [ly] ” a b eer, “ a Hei ne ke n o r so m ethi ng li ke th at .” On cr os s- ex am in at io n Lan ie r co nf irmed th athe ha d s een Davi s p utth e b ot tl e “ up to hi s l ip s” an d t ha t i t “ lo ok ed li ke he was drin ki ng it .” Acco rd in g t o Lan ie r, whe n Dav is saw t he po li ce ca r, he

“ ha d ave ry

ex tre m e rea ct io n,” an d turne d a ro un d qui ck ly andwalk edin to th e st or e. Leav in g h is po li ce ca r, Lani er o rd eredDavi s t o c om e b ackou ts id e, in te nd in g t o a rres t h im

forvi ol at in g t he Atl an taord in an ce fo rb id di ng co ns um pt io n of alc oh ol withi n 1 00 feetof apa ck ag e st or e. Davi s co m pl ie d, an d Lan ie r gr ab be d on e o f Dav is ’ arm s i n o rd er t o h an dc uf f hi m . At th atpo in t Lan ie r fel t a g un inon e of Davi s’ po ck et s. Aft er a fu ll pa t-d own , Lani er fo un d asec on d g un inan ot he r po ck et . Dav is als o t es ti fie d a t the supp res si on he ari ng , ass ert in g t ha t the bo tt le he was see n wi th was a ctua ll y a Sh arp ’s “

Non -Alc oh ol ic Beer ”; th athe ha d n otha d a ch an ce t o drin k fr om

itbe fo re h e was arres te d; an d t ha t h e d idno t turn andrun ba ckto th e st or e aft er h e sa w th e p ol ic e. Inhi s v ers io n o f ev en ts , he n ev er s aw th e po li ce u nt il Lani er s umm on edhi m ba ckou ts id e to arre sthi m . Davi s cl ai m s h e h ad go ne ba ckinth e st or e as th e p ol ic e arr iv edon ly becau se he was t ol d t he re was a te le ph on e cal l fo r hi m . 3The actua l b ot tl e Dav is was s eenwith was no t en te redin to ev id en ce atth e

he ari ng or p res erv edby the po li ce. One ot he r po li ce o ffi cer a ndanin ve st ig at or fo r th e Fed eral Publ ic Defen de r’s of fic e te st ifi ed , andth e p art ie s the n s ub m it te d br ie fs to th e co urt. The m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on co nc lu de d th atLani er an d the othe r of fic ers ha d p ro babl e cau se to arre stDavi s o n t he Atl an ta co de vi ol at io n a ndth atth e res ul ti ng sea rch in ci de ntto arre st , whi chha d re ve al ed th e two fir earm s, was th us no t i n v io la ti on of t he Fo urth Am en dm en t. Inreac hi ng th atco nc lu si on , th e m ag is tra te jud ge ob se rv ed : [T]he ev id en ce s ho ws tha t Def en da ntwas drin ki ng or abo utto dri nk wha t t o a ll ap pe aran ces was abe er. Eve n i f th e Co urt ac cep ts Defen da nt ’s tes ti m on y

th atth e b eer was no na lc oh ol ic , itwas s ti ll a be er, an d o nl y

by a carefu l ex am in at io n o f th e b ot tl e co ul d t he off ic er ha ve di sc ov ereditwas “ no na lc oh ol ic .” The m ag is tra te jud ge furth er n ot edth atev enth e p ho to gr ap h o f a Sh arp ’s bee r labe l tha t Dav is ha d u se d a s an ex hi bi t atth e h eari ng in di cat edth atSh arp ’s co nt ai ne d “ le ss th an0.5 % alc oh ol ” an d was no t, the refo re, “ co m pl et el y no na lc oh ol ic .” The di stric t co urt ad op te d t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on , ov erru li ng Davi s’ ob jecti on s an d d en y in g h is m ot io n t o s up pr es s th e g un s an d p os t-M irand a st at em en ts .

4II.

Inrev ie win g t he de ni al of am ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce, we em pl oy a m ix edst an da rdof r ev ie w: we ac cep t the di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs of f actun le ss th ey are cl earl y

erro ne ou s an d c on si de r de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w to th e fac ts . Uni te d S ta te s v . Gil , 20 4 F .3d13 47 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ); se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 10 8 F .3d27 7, 2 81 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (h ol di ng th at ou r rev ie w of fi nd in gs of h is to ric al factis “ on ly for cl ear e rro r an d [we ] gi ve du e weig htto in fere nc es dra wn fr om th os e fac ts by resi de ntjud ge s an d l oc al law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers ”) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d e ll ip si s o m it te d) ). Whe n c on si de rin g a ru li ng on a m ot io n t o s up pr es s, we co ns tru e al l fa ct s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p arty

th atpre va il edinth e d is tri ctco urt, wh ic h a s t o t he is su e h ere, was th e go ve rn m en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Hrom ad a, 49 F.3d68 5, 6 88 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ).

“ Fo r pr ob ab le cau se to ex is t, an arres t m us t b e o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e b as ed on th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Stre et , 47 2 F .3d12 98 , 13 05 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (qu ot at io n a ndell ip si s o m it te d) “ Bec au se su ffi ci en t p ro babi li ty, no t ce rta in ty, is th e to uc hs to ne of r eas on ab le ne ss un de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, pr ob ab le cau se it se lf i s a d oc tri ne of r eas on ab le pro babi li ty andno t ce rta in ty.” Crai g v . Sin gl et ary, 12 7 F .3d10 30 , 10 42 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (en banc ) (quo ta ti on s an d c it at io n o m it te d) (ad dr es si ng a fed eral habe as pe ti ti on ). 5III.

Co ns tru in g the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, we fin d n o e rro r, le t al on e a cl ear o ne , inth e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of f act . Andwe co nc lu de th atgi ve n t ho se fact s, Offi cer Lan ie r ha d a n o bjec ti ve ly reaso nabl e be li ef, b as edon th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th atDavi s h advi ol at edAtl an ta Co de § 1 0- 7( a). Bec au se th e arr es t was leg al , th e warra nt le ss sea rch in ci de ntto it , du rin g wh ic h the fir earm s wer e d is co ve red , was v al id . Fin al ly, be cau se th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t err in fin di ng pro babl e cau se , we dec li ne to ad dr es s Dav is ’ arg um en t th atth e p os t-M ira nd a st at em en ts he m ad e to law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers were in adm is si bl e b ecau se th ey were t ai nt edby an il le ga l arres t. AFFIRMED.

6