1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable

Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1578

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

*

Walter J. Hill, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 13, 2008

Filed: March 9, 2009

___________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Walter J. Hill appeals from the order of the District Court1

 denying his motion

to suppress evidence. We affirm.

In March 2007, the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department was searching

for a female murder suspect who reportedly had changed her appearance to look like

a man. A detective working the case saw several people leave the Kansas City
-2-

residence where police believed the murder suspect was staying. When those people

got into a Buick LeSabre and drove away, the detective asked two officers to do a

vehicle check to see if the suspect was among those in the car. The officers followed

the LeSabre for a short distance and observed the driver commit three traffic

violations (failing to signal twice and driving in the wrong lane) before pulling the car

over.

The LeSabre's windows were darkly tinted, so the officers asked the occupants

to roll down the windows. When they did so, one of the officers saw a rifle barrel on

the floor of the back seat near Hill's feet. The occupants were removed from the car

and detained for various reasons. The LeSabre was searched before it was towed.

Officers found two rifles and ammunition. Hill was charged in a one-count indictment

as a felon in possession of a firearm. The District Court, after an evidentiary hearing,

denied Hill's motion to suppress the evidence retrieved from the LeSabre. Hill then

entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his

suppression motion. He now exercises that right. We review the District Court's

factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.

Cartier, 543 F.3d 442, 445–46 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (2009).

For his only issue on appeal, Hill contends that the reliability of the Kansas City

Police Department's confidential informant was unverified and the information

received from that person was so vague that the officers' "seizure" of Hill "was not

supported by reasonable suspicion." Br. of Appellant at 4. We assume Hill is

referring to the information that police received regarding the murder suspect, which

led them to the residence where the individuals were observed getting into the

LeSabre. But the officers did not develop reasonable suspicion or probable cause to

stop the LeSabre because of any information that was given to the police by an

informant. When the officers stopped the vehicle, they had seen the driver commit

three traffic violations, a fact that Hill does not dispute, and that is why they had

probable cause to stop the car. It is irrelevant how the officers came to be in the
-3-

neighborhood or who they thought might have been in the LeSabre when they pulled

it over. The traffic violations supplied the necessary probable cause for the officers

to make the stop, and as we have said many times, such a stop does not violate the

Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Sallis, 507 F.3d 646, 649 (8th Cir.

2007). This is true regardless of any subjective reason the officers may have had for

stopping the vehicle. See Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996)

("Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment

analysis.").

We see no error of law or fact and affirm the order denying Hill's motion to

suppress.

______________________________