1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3835

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Clarence Harrison Steele, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2005

Filed: May 19, 2005 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Clarence Steele entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of possession

with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base, and one count of aiding

and abetting that crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Steele appeals the district court's1

 denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence

seized and statements made after police stopped the car in which he was a passenger.
-2-

Steele argues that police did not have probable cause to stop the car or to search it or

its occupants, that there was no probable cause to obtain a search warrant for the

package seized, and that there is no evidence that the affiant seeking the search

warrant was sworn before making his affidavit. Having carefully reviewed the record

and arguments presented, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The relevant facts have been set out in the opinion of Steele's co-defendant

Michael Salone, United States v. Salone, No. 04-3806, slip op. (8th Cir. May 19,

2005), so we will not repeat them here.

II. DISCUSSION

Like his co-defendant Salone, Steele first argues that the initial stop of the car

in which he was riding was an unconstitutional seizure because officers lacked

probable cause. As we explain in Salone, we are satisfied that this seizure was

supported by probable cause and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Steele argues that Corporal Barnett either knew or should have known that

Steele, Salone, and James Dotson (the driver of the car) did not have drugs with them

in the box they carried from the apartment because the CI had told Barnett that there

were no drugs in that apartment. But as Barnett testified at the suppression hearing,

the CI had provided convincing details about a plan by Steele and Salone to package

what drugs they had in Fort Smith in a box and mail them back to California. Barnett

believed this transport of the box, whether already full of drugs or on its way to be

filled somewhere else, was part of a drug offense in the process of being committed.

"Probable cause to conduct a warrantless arrest exists when at the moment of arrest

police have knowledge of facts and circumstances grounded in reasonably

trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a belief by a prudent person that an
2

Steele also argues that Dotson's statement was the product of an illegal stop

of the car, and thus should be suppressed. We have already disposed of this argument

above.

-3-

offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested." United States

v. Haggard, 368 F.3d 1020, 1023 (8th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted). Barnett also

testified he believed drugs would be found in the duffel bags that the men carried to

the car from the apartment after they returned from their first venture from the

apartment. All of this provided officers with probable cause to stop the car.

Steele next argues there was no probable cause to support the search warrant

that issued for the package retrieved from the post office. He asserts, and Barnett

admits, that Dotson's statement to Sergeant Lawson that Dotson had mailed a box

containing a stuffed animal to California was the only way police knew where the

drug package was. Steele argues that Dotson's statement was insufficient to give rise

to probable cause for a warrant because Dotson did not have first-hand knowledge of

drugs being inside the package. This argument is, charitably speaking, meritless.

Dotson's statement further corroborated the information provided by the CI. Thus,

the warrant was clearly supported by probable cause.2

We have considered Steele's remaining argument regarding proof of oath for

the affidavit supporting the search warrant, and find it to be without merit.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________