2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-7-2007

USA v. Humphries

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-2955

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Humphries" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 991.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/991
 *

The Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Judicial

Circuit, sitting by designation.

 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 05-2955

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

FRED HUMPHRIES,

 Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-00535

(Honorable John R. Padova)

Argued March 1, 2007

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, McKEE and NOONAN*

, Circuit Judges.

(Filed June 7, 2007)

BRETT G. SWEITZER, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)

ROBERT EPSTEIN, ESQUIRE

Defender Association of Philadelphia

Federal Court Division

The Curtis Center, Suite 540 West

601 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

Attorneys for Appellant
2

SUSAN L. FIELDS, ESQUIRE (ARGUED)

Office of United States Attorney

615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

Attorney for Appellee

OPINION OF THE COURT

NOONAN, Circuit Judge.

Fred Humphries (“Humphries”) pled guilty to one count of being a felon in

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He appeals, arguing that

the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered in his

vehicle. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We may affirm the district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record.

Erie Telecomms. v. Erie, 853 F.2d 1084, 1089 (3d Cir. 1988). While Humphries was

actually arrested for a DUI violation, there was probable cause to arrest Humphries for

leaving the scene of an accident in violation of 75 Pa. C. S. § 3743. See Devenpeck v.

Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 154-55 (2004). Two Philadelphia police officers observed

Humphries backing his Nissan Pathfinder up the wrong side of the street, away from

another vehicle pinned against a fence. The occupants of the pinned vehicle were

pointing toward the Pathfinder, which had extensive damage to its front end. Based on

the facts known to the officers, there was probable cause to believe that Humphries was

leaving the scene of an accident, and they had authority to arrest him for this offense

without a warrant. See id. at 152; see also 75 Pa. C. S. § 6304. Thus, the evidence at
3

issue is admissible because it was obtained during a search incident to a lawful arrest. 

New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460 (1981). We need not reach the issue of whether

the evidence was admissible under the doctrine of inevitable discovery. See Nix v.

Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).

AFFIRMED.