2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-11-2009 

# U SA v . J ohn George P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1515

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J o hn Ge org e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1882. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1882NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 1515

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J O H N P A T R IC K G E O R G E , a /k /a J O H N P A T R IC K H O L G U IN , a /k /a J O H N G E O R G E P A T R IC K , a / k / a J OHN P AT RI CK HOQUI N, a / k / a DEA N G EOR GE, A ppel l ant

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cr - 00161) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February6, 2009 B e f o re : M c K E E , J O R D A N , a n d L O U R IE * , C i rcui tJud ges. ( Fi l ed: February11, 2009)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________

_______________ * H o n o ra b le A lan D . L o u rie , C irc u it Ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fort he Feder al C i r cui ts i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.L O U R IE , C i r cui tJudge .

Jo h n P atri ck G eo rge ap p ea ls from the d ec isi o n o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia d e n y in g G e o rg e ’s m o tio n s to su p p re ss c e rta in e v id e n c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G eor

ge , C r i m i nal N o. 06- 161, 2007 U . S. D i s t . L E X I S 33068 (W . D . P a. M ay4 , 2 0 0 7 ) (“ G eor ge I ” ); U ni t ed Stat es v. G eor

ge , C r i m i nal N o. 06- 161 (W . D . P a. July2 0 , 2 0 0 7 ) (“ G eo rg e II ”) . B eca us e G eor ge has fai l ed t o s how thatthe Di s t r i c tCo u r te r r e d i n i t s e v i d e n t i a r yd e c i s i o n s , we a f f i r m. 

### I . BA CK GR OU ND G e o rg e w a s s to p p e d b yO f f ice r H u g h e s o f

th e M o u n t L e b a n o n , P e n n sy lv a n ia Pol i ce D epart m enton D ece m ber24, 2004. H ughes had pr evi ous l ybeen i nform ed of a r epor tt hata bus i nes s w as t o be bur gl ar i zed ove rthe C hr i s t m as w eeke nd and had be en g iven sp ec ifi c inf

o rm ati o n ab o u t th e p rosp ec ti v e b u rglar’s tru ck , inclu d ing it s co lor, m a k e , m o d e l, an d lice n se n u m b e r. H u g h e s w a s a lso to ld th a t th e su sp e c ted b u rg lar d id n o t h a v e a v a lid P e n n s y lv a n ia d ri v e r’ s lic e n s e . H ughes obs erved the truck des cr i bed i n t he r epor tand fol l ow ed i t . A ft erthe truck m ade s ever al tur ns , H ughes s t opped the truck and t ol d t he dr i verand pas s engerthatt hey had bee n s t opped forfai l i ng t o pr oper l yus e a turn s i gnal . H ughes as ked G eor ge for i dent i fi cat i on, and he pr oduced a Fl or i da dr i ver ’ s l i cens e, a Penns y l vani a r egi s t r at i on car d, and a Penns y l vani a i ns ur ance car d. G eor ge and hi s pas s engerw er e det ai ned for aboutt hi r t ym i nut es w hi l e H ughes and otheroffi cer s w ho had arr i ved atthe s cene c h e c k e d G e o rg e ’s id e n tity . A f ter tellin g G e o rg e h e w a s f re e to lea v e , H u g h e s a sk e d tol ook i nt o t he truck, and G eor ge cons ent ed. T he off i cer s found and s ei zed bi nocul ar s , s ki m as ks , a not ebook w i t h bus i nes s es and s oci al cl ubs not ed, s l edge ha m m er s , chi s el s , m et al c u ttin g b la d e s , g lo v e s , a n d ro p e s . G e o rg e w a s th e n p e rm itte d to le a v e . O n J anuary28, 2005, pur s uantt o 18 Pa. C . S. A . § 5761, M agi s t r at e J udge J ohn Z o tt o la au tho ri ze d the in stal lat ion an d u se o f a m o b il e track ing d ev ice to track G eo rge ’s t ruck. W i t h t he mobi l e tr acki ng devi ce, on A pr i l 25, 2005, G eor ge w as tr acke d t o a g ro c e rysto re a n d a rre ste d f o r b u rg lar ya n d o th e r o f f e n se s. A f

ter G e o rg e ’s a rre st, sta te t r ooper s w entt o G eor ge’ s hous e and s ear ched i tupon obt ai ni ng hi s w i fe’ s cons ent . T he t r ooper s found and s ei zed a r ece i ptfora s t or age uni tand appl i ed fora w arr antt o s ear ch t he s t or age uni t . Pur s uantt o t he s ear ch w arr ant , the s t or age f aci l i t yw as s ear ched on A p ril 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , an d tw o w e a p o n s w e re se ize d , alth o u g h n e ith e r w e a p o n w a s m e n tio n e d in t he s ear ch w arr ant . G eor ge w as i ndi ct ed bya gr and j uryforpos s es s i on of a f i r earm aft er havi ng been c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e puni s habl e bya t erm of i m pr i s onm enti n exce s s of one y e a r. G e o rg e m o v e d to s u p p re s s c e rt a in e v id e n c e , c h a lle n g in g , in tera lia , the p ro p rie ty of a tr aff i c s t op and the s ear ch of hi s vehi cl e on D ece m ber24, 2004, the pr opr i etyof the or derdat ed J anuary28, 2005, w hi ch had a uthor i zed the us e of a m obi l e tr acki ng devi ce, and the s ear ch of the s t or age f aci l i t yon A pr i l 28, 2005. T he C our tfound the tr aff i c s t op fora t echni cal vi ol at i on of the mot orvehi cl e code ( i . e. , fai l i ng t o us e a turn s i gnal ) t o be l egi t i m at e, even i f the s t op w as a pr et extforan i nves t i gat i on of s om e othercr i m e, ci t i ng W hr en v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 517 U . S. 806 ( 1996) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. B urks , 2 0 0 7 WL1 2 8 0 0 5 (W .D . P a . J a n . 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). G eor ge I, 2007 U . S. D i s t . L exi s 33068, at*3. T he C our tt hus deni ed the mot i on w i t h r es pectt o t he tr aff i c s t op. T he C our tal s o deni ed the m o tio n w ith re sp e c t to th e w a rra n tles s s e a rc h o f G e o rg e ’s tru c k b e c a u se it fo u n d c re d ib le H ughes ’ t es t i m onyt hatG eor ge had c ons ent ed t o t he s ear ch, es peci al l ygi ven a vi deo of t he i nci dents how i ng G eor ge openi ng bot h t he vehi cl e doorand the doort o t he ca b of the tru c k f o r t h e o f f ic e rs ’ i n s p e c tio n . I

d. T he C our tdeni ed the mot i on w i t h r es pectt o t he se izu re o f

item s f ro m th e v e h icle , as th e item s w e re c lea rlyto o ls c o m m o n lyu se d f o r th e f t, a n d Hu g h e s h a d h a d Ge o r g e ’ s c o n s e n ta n d th e r e wa s p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e th e i t e ms w e re in s tru m e n ts o f

c ri m e . I d. T he C our tdeni ed the mot i on w i t h r es pectt o t he i ns t al l at i on of the mobi l e tr acki ng devi ce, s t at i ng t hat“[t ] he s t atut e author i zi ng the i ns t al l at i on and us e of a M obi l e Tra cki ng D e v ice is n o t co n stitu tio n a llyin f irm . N o se a rc h o c c u rre d a n d [ G e o rg e ] h a d n o leg iti m a te expec t at i ons of pr i vacyw i t h r es pectt o t he tr acki ng devi ce w hi l e dr i vi ng hi s vehi cl e on publ i c r oadw ay s . ” G eo rg e II, C ri m in a l N o . 0 6 -1 6 1 , s lip o p . a t 2 . T he C our tfi nal l ydeni ed the mot i on w i t h r es pectt o t he s ear ch of the s t or age fac i l i t y , r eas oni ng t hat“the s ear ch w arr ant [ w as ] ent er ed i nt o evi dence and demonstr at e[d] cl ear l yt he exi s t ence of pr obabl e ca us e. ” G eor ge I, 2 0 0 7 U .S . D ist. L e x is 33068, at*4. A ccor di ng t o t he C our t , “[t ] he ci r cumst ance s w hi ch occ urr ed on D ece m ber 24, 2004, al ong w i t h t he obs ervat i ons of A pr i l 23, 2005 and A pr i l 25, 2005 pr ovi ded a s ubs t ant i al bas i s fort he i s s uance of the w arr ant [] . ” I d. T h e C o u rt late r c lar if ied its s t at ement , s ay i ng t hati thad “ne verrul ed that[G eor ge] l acke d s t andi ng t o cont es tthes ear ch of s t or age uni t , ” buti ns t ead ha d “rul ed thatther e w as a s ubs t ant i al bas i s forthe

m agi s t r at e’ s det erm i nat i on of pr obabl e ca us e forthe i s s uance of the s ear ch w arr ant . ” G eo rg e II, C ri m in a l N o . 0 6 -1 6 1 , s lip o p . a t 1 . G e o rg e w a s c o n v ic te d a n d s e n te n c e d , a n d h e tim e ly ap p e a le d th e f in a l ju d g m e n t. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 

### I I . DI SCUSSI ON

“ W e re v iew th e d istric t co u rt’s d e n ial o f [ a ] m o tio n to su p p re ss f o r c lea r e rro r a s to u n d erly ing fa cts, b u t exe rcise p lena ryrev iew as to it s leg ali tyin li g h t of the c o u rt ’s pr oper l yfound fa ct s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G i van , 320 F. 3d 452, 458 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . W e r evi ew the i s s uance of a s ear ch w arr antt o s ee w hethert he m a g is tr a te h a d a “ s u b s ta n tia l b a s is ” f o r c o n c lu d in g th a t p ro b a b le c a u s e w a s p re s e n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. C onl ey , 4 F .3 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). O n appea l , G eor ge ar gues t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng hi s s uppr es s i on m o tio n s, a n d th a t th e ju d g m e n t an d se n ten c e sh o u ld th e re f o re b e v a c a ted . G e o rg e a ss e rts t hatt he tr aff

i c s t op w as unl aw ful beca us e i tw as pr et extual and w as eff ect ed onl yt o al l ow a gr eat eri nt rus i on. G eor ge al s o ar gues thathi s s ubs equenthal f- hourdet ent i on w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e i tw as l ongert han nec es s aryt o i s s ue a w arni ng w hi l e he w as not f re e to lea v e , an d th a t th e se a rc h o f h is tru c k w a s n o n c o n se n su a l, eith e r b e c a u se h e d id notcons entorbeca us e the tr aff i c s t op w as coer ci ve. T hus , acc or di ng t o G eor ge, the s ei zur e of i t ems s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed as the frui tof an unl aw ful s ear ch. G eor ge al s o ar gues t hatt he s t at e tr ooper s l acke d anycaus e orbas i s i n t hei rappl i cat i on forthem obi l e tr acki ng devi ce, as t heyr el i ed on a c onfi dent i al i nform antw i t houtpr ovi di ng any

i nform at i on on t he i nform ant ’ s r el i abi l i t y , and theyl acke d pr obabl e ca us e t o obt ai n a w arr antt o s ear ch G eor ge’ s s t or age uni t , as ther e w as no evi dence thatthe i t ems l i s t ed m i ghtbe found i n t he s t or age uni t . A ccor di ng t o G eor ge, the s ei zur e of the tw o handguns s houl d t her efor e al s o be s uppr es s ed as frui tof the unl aw ful s ear ch. T he governm entr es ponds t hatthe tr aff i c s t op w as notunl aw ful beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatG eor ge turned w i t houts i gnal i ng, a det erm i nat i on thati s ent i t l ed t o s ubs t ant i al defe r ence , and eve n a pr et extual s t op i s l egi t i m at e i f i ti s bas ed on a vi ol at i on of a tr aff

i c code . T he s t op w as notunr eas onabl yl ong, acc or di ng t o t he governm ent , beca us e the s t op r equi r ed extr a t i m e as ci r cumst ance s unfol ded, eac h r equi r i ng fur t heri nves t i gat i on. T he governm ental s o ar gues thatthe off i cer s s ear ched G eor ge’ s carpur s uantt o hi s cons ent , and the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s cr edi bi l i t yfi ndi ng t o t hat e f f e c t w a s n o t cle a rlye rro n e o u s, a s th e e v id e n c e sh o w e d G e o rg e n o d d in g h is h e a d in cons entand openi ng t he door s t o hi s truck. T he appl i cat i on forthe mobi l e tr acki ng d e v ice w a s s u f

f icie n t, ac c o rd in g to th e g o v e rn m e n t, be c a u se it relie d n o t o n lyo n th e tip fr om t he conf

i dent i al i nform ant , butal s o on the s ei zed e vi dence fr om the tr aff i c s t op and t he fa ctt hatt he ci r cumst ance s corr obor at ed the i nform ant ’ s t i p. Fi nal l y , the governm ent a rg u e s th a t th e o f

f ice rs h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to o b tain a se a rc h w a rra n t, as th e m a g istra te n e e d o n lyh a v e re a so n a b lyin f e rre d th a t G e o rg e w o u ld sto re th e f ru its o f h is b u rg lar ies in th e sto ra g e u n it, p ro v id in g a n e x u s b e tw e e n th e item s liste d a n d th e sto ra g e u n it. W e a g ree w ith the g o v ern m en t th at th e D istri ct C o u rtp erm issi b lyd en ied G eo rge ’sm o tio n s to su p p re ss . F irst, th e tra f f ic s to p w a s n o t u n law f

u l. A tra f

f ic s to p is re a so n a b le as l ong as “an of

fi cerpos s es s ed s peci fi c, ar t i cul abl e fa ct s thatan i ndi vi dual w as vi ol at i ng a tr aff i c l aw att he t i m e of the s t op. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. D el

f i n- C ol i na , 464 F. 3d 392, 398 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h u s, “ a n ytec h n ica l v io latio n o f a tra f f ic c o d e leg iti m ize s a sto p , ev e n if t he s t op i s m er el ypr et extforan i nves t i gat i on of s om e othercr i m e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Mos l ey , 454 F. 3d 249, 252 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng W hr en , 517 U . S. 806) . H er e, the D istric t C o u rt b e liev e d , af ter h e a rin g e v id e n c e f

ro m b o th sid e s, th a t G e o rg e h a d f a iled to u se h is tu rn sig n a l. T h e d istric t co u rt’s c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n w a s n o t cle a rly err on eou s, as G eorge, w hen asked w hetherhe h ad si gn al ed fo r al l of h i s turns, equi vocal l ys t at ed: “I t houghtI di d. I coul d have s w or e I di d. ” See G i van , 320 F. 3d at 4 5 8 (re v iew in g f

a c tu a l d e ter m in a tio n s f

o r c lea r e rro r). T h u s, G e o rg e ’s f a ilu re to u se h is tur n s i gnal , even i f a pr et extr athert han the ac tual m ot i vat i on forthe s t op, r ender ed the tra f f ic s to p law f

u l. S e c o n d , w e a g re e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t th e s to p w a s n o t u n re a s o n a b ly lo n g . M os tof the s t op w as s pentw ai t i ng foran off i cert o go t o t he s t at i on t o chec k w hether G eorge w as the sam e person as ano t her John G eorge w ho se Pen nsy l van i a dri ver’ s l i cense had bee n s us pended. T he s t op ended w hen, aft eraboutthi r t ym i nut es , the off i cer r etur ned w i t h a pi ctur e of the otherJ ohn G eor ge, and G eor ge w as gi ven hi s l i cens e and to ld h e w a s f

re e to le a v e . See i d. ( r ecogni zi ng thattr aff i c s t op ends and cons ens ual e n c o u n ter b e g in s o n c e m o to rist’s d o c u m e n ts a re re tu rn e d to h im a n d h e is to ld th a t h e is f re e to lea v e ). T h e sim ilarityo f th e tw o n a m e s (b o th Jo h n G e o rg e , w ith d if f e re n t m id d lei ni t i al s ) gave the off i cer s r eas onabl e s us pi ci on thatG eor ge mayhave be en dr i vi ng w i th a s us pended l i cens e, j us t i fy i ng hi s det ent i on unt i l hi s i dent i t yw as ver i fi ed. T he ver i fi cat i on di d nott ake unr eas onabl yl ong, as t he off i cer s di d nothave a n on- boar d comput ers y s t em th a t w o u ld a llo w th e m to a c c e ss p h o to g ra p h s o r d e sc rip tiv e in f o rm a tio n w ith w h ich to ver i fyG eor ge’ s i dent i t yand thus had t o l eave the s i t e t o obt ai n ver i fi cat i on. T hi r d, the s ear ch of G eor ge’ s carw as al s o j us t i fi ed, as the D i s t r i ctC our tw as notcl ear l yerr oneous i n fi ndi ng t hatG eor ge vol unt ar i l ycons ent ed t o t he s ear ch, r el y i ng on t he vi deo of the i nci dentt hats how ed G eor ge vol unt ar i l yopeni ng the door s of hi s truck t o al l ow the s ear ch. Fi nal l y , w e agr ee w i t h t he governm entthatthe tw o w arr ant s , fori ns t al l i ng a m o b ile tra c k in g d e v ice a n d f o r se a rc h in g th e sto ra g e u n it, w e re su p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le caus e. I n appl y i ng t o i ns t al l t he mobi l e tr acki ng devi ce, the tr oopers etfor t h t he cont ent of the i nform er ’ s t i p and expl ai ned how thati nform at i on had bee n corr obor at ed bythe event s of D ece m ber24, 2004, i ncl udi ng the tr aff i c s t op i t s el f, s t at ement s m ade byG eor ge d u rin g th e tra f

f ic s to p , an d se izu re o f

th e to o ls. (A p p . 8 6 -8 9 .) T h e a f f id a v it also se t f

o rth G eor ge’ s cr i m i nal r ecor d, al ong w i t h t hatof hi s pas s enger . ( A pp. 89- 92. ) T hus , the aff i davi tdi d notr el ys ol el yon a t i p fr om a conf i dent i al i nform antbutcont ai ned c o rr o b o ra tin g e v id e n c e . G eo rge arg u es th at, in the ap p li ca ti o n fo r a w arran t t o sea rch h is st o rag e u n it , there w as no evi dence t hatt he i t ems l i s t ed mi ghtbe found i n t he s t or age uni t . H ow ever , the m agi s t r at e i s s ui ng t he w arr anthad a “ m i ni m um s ubs t ant i al bas i s ” t o concl ude thattheite m s m ig h t b e f o u n d in th e s to ra g e u n it. C onl ey , 4 F. 3d at1205. I n hi s aff i davi t , the t r ooperexpl ai ned thatt he s ear ch of G eor ge’ s hom e nett ed a r ece i pts how i ng thatG eor ge w as act i vel yr ent i ng t he s t or age uni t . ( A pp. 123. ) T he tr ooperal s o des cr i bed the ea r l i er t r aff i c s t op and G eor ge’ s cr i m i nal r ecor d ( A pp. 114- 16) , l eadi ng t o a r eas onabl e i nfer ence th a t G e o rg e m ig h t h a v e th e lis te d s to le n g o o d s a n d to o ls th a t m ig h t b e u s e d f o r b u rg la ry. G i ven thatt he tr ooperhad notfound the i t ems i n G eor ge’ s hom e, the magi s t r at e had a m i ni m um s ubs t ant i al bas i s t o concl ude thattheym i ghtbe found i n t he s t or age uni the w as a c tiv e ly re n tin g . See U ni t ed Stat es v. W

hi tner , 219 F. 3d 289, 296- 97 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( “The issuing jud g e o r m ag istrate . . . is en ti tl ed to d raw rea so n ab le i n fe ren ce s ab o u t w h ere e v id e n c e is lik e ly to b e k e p t, b a s e d o n th e n a tu re o f th e e v id e n c e a n d th e typ e o f o f f e n s e ,” i n c l u d i n g “ n o r m a l i n f

e r e n c e s a b o u tw h e r e a c r i m i n a l m i g h th i d e s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . ” ) . We th e re f o re a g re e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t th e se a rc h w a rra n t w a s s u p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le caus e. 

### I I I . CONCLUSI ON F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de n ial o f G eo rge ’s m ot i ons t o s uppr es s evi dence .