FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MARCH 29, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 12944 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 5 4 6 - C R - T - 2 4 - T GW U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S A M U E L D A V I S , J R ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 29, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

S a m u e l D a v is , J r . ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e f o rb e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) a n d 9 2 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . D a vi s a s s e rt s the f

ol l ow i ng a r gum e nt s on appe a l : ( 1) the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o sup pres s e vi dence because l aw enforce m entoffi ce rs d e ta in e d h im w ith o u t r e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n ; ( 2 ) 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) is u n c o n s titu tio n a l o n its f a c e a n d a s ap p lie d to h im ; a n d ( 3 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c le a r ly erre d b y denyi ng hi m a r educt i on for a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty. W e a ff i rm D avi s’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence . I . DI S CUS S I ON A . Mo t i o n to Su

p p ress W e r evi ew a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a def endant ’ s m ot i on t o sup pres s und er am i xe d s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w , r e vi e w i ng the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tunde rthe c le a r lye rr o n e o u s s ta n d a r d a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ap p lic a tio n o f la w to th o s e f

a c ts d e n o v o . See U

n ite d S ta te s v . G il , 2 0 4 F .3 d 1 3 4 7 , 1 3 5 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e f a c ts m ustbe construed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the party pre vai l i ng i n the di stri ct c o u rt. U n ite d Sta te s v . Sa n ta , 2 3 6 F .3 d 6 6 2 , 6 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p r o v id e s “[ t]h e r ig h t o f th e p e o p le to b e s e c u r e in the i rpe r s ons , hous e s , pape r s a nd e f f e c t s , a ga i ns tunr e a s onabl e s e a r c he s a nd s e i z ur e s , s ha l l notbe vi ol a t e d . . . . ” G e ne r a l l y , e vi de nc e s e i z e d i n vi ol a t i on of the3

F o u rth A m e n d m e n t m a y n o t b e in tr o d u c e d in to e v id e n c e . See T e rr yv . O h io , 8 8 S. C t. 1 8 6 8 , 1 8 8 4 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . H o w e v e r , la w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s m a y , c o n s is te n t w ith the F ou rth A m endm ent , “ st op and b ri ef l y det ai n a pers on t o i nv es t i gat e a r e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n th a t h e is in v o lv e d in c r im in a l a c tiv ity , e v e n th o u g h p r o b ab le cause i s l ac ki ng . ” Un i te d S ta te s v . Wi l l i a ms , 876 F . 2d 1521, 1523 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( c i t i ng T erry , 8 8 S . C t. a t 1 8 8 4 ) . “[ R ]e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n , lik e p r o b ab le c au s e , is no t‘ re adi l y, or even useful l y, re du ce d t o a neatse tof l egal rul es . ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v . Sokolow , 1 0 9 S . C t. 1 5 8 1 , 1 5 8 5 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . R e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n is “c o n s id e r ab ly l es s than p roof of w rong do i ng by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence” and l es s than p r o b ab le c au s e . I

d. T h e “r e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n ” m u s t b e m o r e th a n a n “in c h o a te and u np art i cul ar i ze d suspi ci on or ‘ hu nch. ’ ” I d. ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) .

“ R easo n ab l e su sp i ci o n i s d et erm i n ed fro m th e t o t al i ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces, and from the col l ec t i ve kn ow l edge of the offi ce rs i nv ol ved i n the st op . ” Wi l l i a ms , 8 7 6 F .2 d a t 1 5 2 4 ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h e o f f ic e r“m u s t b e ab le to p o in t to s pe c i f i c a nd a rt i c ul abl e f

a c t s w hi c h, t a ke n t oge the rw i th r a t i ona l i nf e r e nc e s f r om tho se fa ct s, re as on abl y w arrantthati ntrusi on . ” T erry , 88 S . C t . at18 80 . “ S uch fa ct s m aybe deri ved from ‘ vari ou s obj ec t i ve ob se rvat i on s, i nform at i on fr om po l i ce r e port s , i f

s uc h a r e a va i l abl e , a nd c ons i de r a t i on of the m ode s orpa tt e rns of op er at i on of ce rt ai n k i nd s of l aw brea kers . ’ ” Wi l l i a ms , 876 F . 2d a t1524 ( c i t a t i on4

om i tt e d) . A l s o, “ [ a ] r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on of c r i m i na l a c t i vi tym a ybe f orm e d by ob se rvi ng excl usi vel y l egal ac t i vi ty. ” U ni te d State s v . G ordon , 231 F . 3d 750, 754 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . I n Flo r i da v . J

. L. , the S upr e m e C ourts t a t e d: U nl i ke at i p f

r om aknow n i nf

orm a ntw hos e r e put a t i on c a n be a s s e s s e d a n d w h o c a n b e h e ld r e s p o n s ib le if h e ra lle g a tio n s tu rn o u t to be f abr i c a t e d, a n a nony m ous t i p a l one s e l dom de m ons tr a t e s the i nf orm a nt ’ s ba s i s of

know l e dge orve r a c i ty . A s w e ha ve r e c ogni z e d, h o w e v e r , th e r e a r e s itu a tio n s in w h ic h a n a n o n y m o u s tip , s u itab ly c orr obor a t e d, e xhi bi t s s uf f i c i e nti ndi c i aof

r e l i abi l i tyt o pr ovi de r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on t o m a ke the i nve s t i ga t orys t op. 120 S . C t . 1375, 1378 ( 2000) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he S up re m e C ou rtal so hel d the pres ence of an i nd i vi du al m at chi ng the ph ys i ca l d e s c r ip tio n g iv e n b y a n a n o n y m o u s tip in th e a r e ain d ic a te d b yth e tip is in s u f f ic ie n t, s ta n d in g a lo n e , to e s tab lis h r e a s o n ab le s u s p ic io n . I d. a t1379. T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o terr b y d en yi n g D av i s’ s m o t i o n t o su p p ress evi dence because r ea sonabl e s uspi ci on supp ort ed D avi s’ s det ent i on . A s an i ni t i al m a tt e r , a l though D a vi s not e s the di s pa t c he ri nf orm e d D e putyM c C l us kythe b u r g la ry s u s p e c t w a s s ittin g in ab u r g u n d y , tw o - d o o rS a tu rn w ith lic e n s e p la te n u m b e r2 9 8 J I I , a n d aw h ite f e m a le w ith r e d h a irw a s s ittin g in th e d r iv e r ’s s e a t, D eputy M cC l usky t es t i fi ed (1) he di d n otre ca l l w hether the di spat cherhad g i ven hi m ade s c r i pt i on of

the ve hi c l e i nvol ve d i n the bur gl a ry , a nd ( 2) he w a s ha vi ng a5

h a r d tim e h e a r in g h is r a d io b e c au s e th e a r e ah e w a s in w a s e x p e r ie n c in g th e e f f e c ts of H urr i c a ne F r a nc i s . I n a ny e ve nt , the r e c or d de m ons tr a t e s D e putyM c C l us kya nd S e r ge a ntN oor dz y ha d ar e a s onabl e s us pi c i on tha tD a vi s w a s i nvol ve d i n the b u r g la ry a t th e tim e D e p u tyM c C lu s k yq u e s tio n e d D a v is , g iv e n th e f o llo w in g : ( 1) D e puty M c C l us ky and S e r ge a ntN oor dz yt e s t i f i e d the ya rr i ve d a tthe s c e ne of th e s u s p e c te d b u r g la ry w ith in m in u te s o f th e r e c e ip t o f

th e 9 1 1 c a ll; ( 2 ) D e p u ty M cC l usky t es t i fi ed the di spat ch re po rti nd i ca t ed a c arsuspec t ed of bei ng i nv ol ved i n the bu rgl ary w as st i l l parked i n frontof the tra i l er , and D avi s’ s c arw as l ocat ed appr oxi m a t e l y 10 t o 15 f e e ti n f r ontof the tr a i l e r ; ( 3) a f

t e rhe a r i ng at ape of

the transm i ss i on betw ee n the di spat cherand D eputy M cC l usky, S er geantN oo rdzy t e s t i f i e d the r e w a s notave hi c l e w i th oc c upa nt s a tthe tr a i l e rm a t c hi ng the desc ri pt i on of the vehi cl e des cr i bed b y the di spat cher ; and (4) S er geantN oo rdzy t e s t i f i e d the dr i ve rof

D a vi s ’ s c a ri nf

orm e d hi m tha tthe dr i ve rha d j us tpi c ke d up D avi s, w ho i s abl ac k m al e, and thathi s di spat ch sc re en had report ed a w i tness had o b s e rv e d ab la c km a le c r a w lin g th r o u g h th e w in d o w o f th e tr a ile r . A lth o u g h D a v is as se rt s hi s det ent i on coul d n otbe base d o n h i s m at chi ng “ a vague rac i al de s c r i pt i on, ” the r e c or d s how s S e r ge a ntN oor dz ydi d notor de rD e putyM c C l us ky t o que s t i on D a vi s ba s e d s ol e l y on hi s m a t c hi ng the r a c i a l de s c r i pt i on of the in d iv idu al se en cr aw li n g th ro u g h th e w in d o w o f th e tra il er , g iv en th at D av is’s6

ve hi c l e w a s the onl y oc c upi e d ve hi c l e pa rke d i n f r ontof the tr a i l e ra nd tha tthe d r iv e rin f

o rm e d S e r g e a n t N o o r d z yh e h a d ju s t p ic k e d u p D a v is . Se e J . L. , 1 2 0 S. C t . a t1379. A ddi t i ona l l y , w i th r e s pe c tt o D a vi s ’ s c ont e nt i on the 911 c a l l w a s not suff i ci ent l y r el i abl e t o sup po rthi s det ent i on , the re cord show s S er geantN oo rdzy di d notor de rD e puty M c C l us ky t o que s t i on D a vi s ba s e d s ol e l yon the i nf orm a t i on p r o v id e d b y th e 9 1 1 c a lle r , b e c au s e S e r g e a n t N o o r d z yte s tif ie d h e o r d e r e d D e p u ty M c C l us ky t o que s t i on D a vi s a f t e rhe s poke t o the dr i ve rof D a vi s ’ s c a ra s pa rtof hi s i nv es t i gat i on of the bu rgl ary. B ec ause l aw enforce m entoffi ci al s had re as on abl e s uspi ci on D avi s w as i nv ol ved i n the suspec t ed bu rgl ary, the di stri ct courtdi d n oterr by denyi ng D avi s’ s m ot i on t o sup pres s the fi re arm the depu t i es r e c o v e r e d f

r o m D a v is . B . U nc ons t i tut i onal i t

yof § 922( g) A l tho ug h D avi s r ec og ni ze s w e pre vi ou sl y have r ej ec t ed const i tut i on al c ha l l e nge s t o § 922( g) , he s t a t e s he r a i s e s thi s a r gum e ntpr i m a r i l yf orpurpos e s of en banc or cert i o ra rir e v ie w . D a v is c o n te n d s § 9 2 2 ( g ) is f a c ia llyin v a lid , a s it f

a ils t o l i m i ti t s appl i c a t i on onl y t o c onduc ts ubs t a nt i a l l ya f f e c t i ng i nt e r s t a t e orf

or e i gn com m er ce , as op po se d t o p urel y i ntra st at e c om m er ce , and d oes notre qu i re a s h o w in g th e p o s s e s s io n in q u e s tio n “s u b s ta n tia lly ” a f f e c ts in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . D a vi s f urthe ra r gue s be c aus e hi s pur e l yi ntr a s t a t e pos s e s s i on of the f i r e a rm di d not7

af fe ct in ters tate co m m er ce in an y w ay , h is co n v icti o n fa ll s o u tsid e o f C o n g re ss ’s C o m m e r c e C lau s e p o w e r . W e h av e r ejec ted th e a rg u m en t th at § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) e x ce ed s C o n g re ss ’s C o m m erce C l au se p o w er, reaso n i n g th e fel o n -i n -p o ssessi o n st atu t e h as an ex p ress j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e nt , w hi c h w oul d “ e ns ur e ” the f i r e a rm pos s e s s i on i n que s t i on a f f e c ts in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . U ni ted Stat es v. McA l l ister , 77 F . 3d 387, 389- 90 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . B e c aus e w e ha ve r e j e c t e d the a r gum e nttha t§ 922( g) ( 1) e xc e e ds C on gres s’ s C om m er ce C l ause po w er , D avi s’ s f ac i al and as- appl i ed const i tut i on al c h a lle n g e s f

a il. C . A c c e p ta n c e o f R e s p o n s ib ility W e r e vi e w f

orc l e a re rr oradi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of a c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s ib ility . U

ni te d States v . Si ngh , 291 F . 3d 756, 764 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . T he G u id e lin e s p r o v id e f

o ratw o - le v e l d e c r e a s e in ad e f e n d a n t’s b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l if h e “ c l e a r l y d e m o n s tr a t e s a c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i tyf

o rh i s o f f e n s e . ” U. S . S . G. § 3 E 1 . 1 (a). T h e co m m en t ary t o § 3 E 1 . 1 ex p l ai n s: T hi s a dj us tm e nti s noti nt e nde d t o appl yt o ade f e nda ntw ho put s the go vernm entt o i t s burden o f proof attri al by denyi ng the es se nt i al f a c tua l e l e m e nt s of

gui l t , i s c onvi c t e d, a nd onl ythe n a dm i t s gui l ta nd e xpr e s s e s r e m or s e . C onvi c t i on by tr i a l , how e ve r , doe s not aut om a t i c a l l y pr e c l ude ade f e nda ntf r om c ons i de r a t i on f

ors uc h a re du ct i on . In rare si tuat i on s adefe nd antm aycl earl y dem on stra t e an a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty f

orhi s c r i m i na l c onduc te ve n though he e xe r c i s e s hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o tr i a l . T hi s m a yoc c ur , f or8

exam pl e, w here a def

endantgo es t o tri al t o ass ertand p re se rve i ss ues thatdo no tre l at e t o fac tual gu i l t(e . g. , t o m ake aconst i tut i on al c h a lle n g e to as ta tu te o rac h a lle n g e to th e ap p lic ab ilityo f as ta tu te to h is c o n d u c t) . I n e a c h s u c h in s ta n c e , h o w e v e r , ad e te rm in a tio n th a t a de f e nda ntha s a c c e pt e d r e s pons i bi l i tyw i l l be ba s e d pr i m a r i l yupon p r e - tr ia l s ta te m e n ts a n d c o n d u c t. U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 , c o m m e n t ( n .2 ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc l e a r l ye rrbyde ny i ng D a vi s atw o- l e ve l r e duc t i on fo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty. A l th o u g h th e co m m en t ary t o § 3 E 1 . 1 p ro v i d es a de f e nda ntm a y be e nt i t l e d t o ar e duc t i on t o hi s ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l f

ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s p o n s ib ilityif

h e g o e s to tr ia l to a s s e rt a n d p r e s e rv e is s u e s th a t d o n o t r e la te to hi s f a c tua l gui l t , the c om m e nt a ry a l s o not e s tha t , i n s uc h a n i ns t a nc e , the det erm i nat i on of w hether adefe nd anthas a cc ept ed re spon si bi l i ty w i l l be base d p rim ar il y u p o n h is p re -trial statem en ts an d co n d u ct. In th e in stan t cas e, D av is’s pr e - tr i a l s t a t e m e nt s a nd c onduc tde m ons tr a t e he f a i l e d t o a c c e ptr e s pons i bi l i tyf or h is c o m m is s io n o f

th e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e . D e p u tyM c C lu s k yte s tif ie d th a t, d u r in g h is e nc ount e rw i th D a vi s , D a vi s ( 1) ga ve hi m af a l s e na m e , ( 2) f

a i l e d t o a c know l e dge h e h a d ag u n in h is p o c k e t, a n d ( 3 ) v io le n tlyr e s is te d a rr e s t. A lth o u g h D a v is d id n o tco n t est , d u ri n g ei th er th e su p p ressi o n h eari n g o r h i s tri al , th ath e w as a conv i ct ed fe l on , he w as i n p osse ss i on of the fi re arm i n q uest i on , or he kn ew i tw as un l aw ful for hi m t o b e i n p osse ss i on of the fi re arm , D avi s’ s a tt orney9

a c know l e dge d, dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, tha tD a vi s di d nota ns w e ra l l of the pr oba t i on of

f i c e r ’ s que s t i ons dur i ng hi s pr e - s e nt e nc e i nt e rvi e w a nd D a vi s di d not coop er at e w i th the G ov ernm ent . A l tho ug h D avi s a dm i tt ed hi s gui l tand exp re ss ed re m orse atthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , A pp l i ca t i on N ot e 2 t o § 3E 1. 1 n ot es the pri m ary a r e aof f oc us i n ac a s e w he r e ade f e nda ntpr oc e e ds t o tr i a l i n or de rt o pr e s e rve i s s ue s tha tdo notr e l a t e t o hi s f a c tua l gui l ti s ade f

e nda nt ’ s pr e - tr i a l s t a t e m e nt s a nd c o n d u c t. A s n o te d ab o v e , D a v is ’s p r e - tr ia l s ta te m e n ts a n d c o n d u c t f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te h e a c c e p te d r e s p o n s ib ilityf o rth e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e . F i na l l y , D a vi s ’ s a s s e rt i on the di s tr i c tc ourtvi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s by f a ilin g to g r a n t h im ar e d u c tio n f o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ilitya s ar e s u lt o f h is e x e r c is e o f

h is F o u rth , F if

th , a n d S ix th r ig h ts A m e n d m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it. A l though the di s tr i c tc ourts t a t e d D a vi s w oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d the r e duc t i on i f he ha d pl e d gui l ty , the c ourtl a t e rs t a t e d D a vi s m a yha ve be e n e nt i t l e d t o the r e duc t i on i f he ha d pl e d gui l ty a f

t e ri tde ni e d hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s . T hus , ar e vi e w of the r e c o r d d e m o n s tr a te s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d e n ie d D a v is th e r e d u c tio n b a s e d o n its f i ndi ng tha tD a vi s ’ s pr e - tr i a l s t a t e m e nt s a nd c onduc tdi d notde m ons tr a t e he a c c e pt e d r e s pons i bi l i ty f orthe i ns t a ntof

f e ns e a nd notba s e d on D a vi s ’ s e xe r c i s e of h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts .10 I I . CONCL US I ON T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d enyi ng D avi s’ s m ot i on t o sup pres s or a s e n t e n c i n g r e d u c t i o n f

o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i ty . A d d i t i o n a l l y , 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) is c o n s titu tio n a l. T h u s , w e a f f irm D a v is ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . A F F I R M E D .