## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary5,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 2139 E VE RE T T CH AR L E S BR AKE M AN,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO ( D. C. NO . CR- 0 4 - 2 5 2 4 RB) D a v id J. K im m e lm a n , E l P a so , T e x a s, fo r D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. K el l yH . B ur nham, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , L as C ruces , N ew M exi co, (D av id C . Iglesias, U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y , A lbu q u erq u e, N ew M ex ico, an d T erri J . A bernathy , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney , L as C ruces , N ew M exi co, on t he br i ef) forPl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee. B efo re LU CE RO , C ir c u it J u d g e , Mc WI L L I A MS , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge. E ver et tB r akeman w as convi ct ed i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he Di s t r i c to f

Ne w M e x i c o o n t wo c o u n t s o f b e i n g a fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f fi r e a r ms-2-

and amm uni t i on, one countof pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e l es s than fi ve g ra m s o f

m e th a m p h e tam in e , an d o n e c o u n t o f c a rry in g a fire a rm d u rin g a n d in r el at i on t o a drug- t r aff i cki ng cr i m e. H e appe al s hi s convi ct i ons , cl ai m i ng thatt he d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to su p p re ss e v id e n c e se ize d a s th e re su lt o f tw o v io latio n s o f

th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t: (1 ) a w a rra n t u se d to se a rc h h is r es i dence w as defe ct i ve bec aus e i t s des cr i pt i on of the pl ace t o be s ear ched w as nots uffi ci ent l ypart i cul arand ( 2) an off i cer ’ s pat - dow n s ear ch of hi s per s on i m perm i s s i bl yext ended t o t he cont ent s of a gl as s es cas e af t eri tw as r emoved f r o m h i s p o c k e t . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. I . BA CKGROUND A . Se ar c h W ar r ant O n M ay29 , 20 04 , C hav es C ou ntyS heri ff’s D epu tyM arcos Franco h ad just r es ponded t o a ca l l r egar di ng a l oud partyw hen he obs erved D annyC al l ow ay runni ng fr om M r . B r akeman’ s r es i dence i n a mobi l e- hom e park neart he i nt er s ect i on of Sout h M ai n and M onks dal e i n R os w el l , N ew M exi co. W hen Fr anco s t opped t o det erm i ne w hathad happe ned, C al l ow ays ai d that M r . B r akeman had j us ts hotathi m . C al l ow ayexpl ai ned thathe had gone t o the m obi l e- hom e park t o t r yt o di s pel s us pi ci ons t hathe had s t ol en drugs fr om M r . B r akeman. H e s ai d t hathe had be en s hotatw hi l e he w as l ooki ng for M r . B r akeman out s i de hi s r es i dence .-3-

D e p u ty F ra n c o w a s fa m ilia r w ith M r. B ra k e m a n a n d h is h o m e . D u rin g h is fi el d t r ai ni ng t he l ocat i on had bee n poi nt ed outt o hi m as t he r es i dence of M r . B r akeman, w ho w as w el l know n t o the pol i ce. H e had a l s o s t opped M r. B rak em an p rev iou slyan d h ad rou ti n elyd ri v en thro u g h the a rea . T h e p ri m ary b u ild in g o n th e p ro p e rtyw a s M r. B ra k e m a n ’s r e sid e n c e , w h ich a lso se rv e d a s h is s hop. I tw as w hi t e w i t h a r ed s t r i pe and a gr ayr oof. A n R V w as connec t ed t o t he r es i dence byw hatappea r ed t o be a ut i l i tyconnec t i on. T her e w as al s o atl eas tone outbui l di ng on t he pr oper t y . A por t i on of the pr opertyw as bor der ed bya cha i nl i nk fenc e par t l yl i ned w i t h w hi t e “s ecur i ty ” s tr i ps t o bl ock the vi ew fr om out s i de. O n th e fe n c e in f

ro n t o f th e re sid e n c e w a s a p lac a rd w ith th e n u m b e r “ 2 0 5 ” in w hi t e r efl ect i ve l et t er i ng. T h e d ayaf

ter his i n terview o f C all o w ay , D ep u tyF ran co ap p li ed fo r a w arr antt o s ear ch M r . B r akeman’ s pr opertyfora gun and otherevi dence of the s hoot i ng. H e compl et ed an a ffi davi tdes cr i bi ng the pr opertyt o be s ear ched a s foll ow s: T he pr oper t yi s l ocat ed at205 M onks dal e i n R os w el l , N ew M exi co, Ch a v e s Co u n t y . Th e p r o p e r tyi s d e s c r i b e d a s a wh i t e mo b i l e h o me w i t h r ed tr i m , s i ngl e- w i de. T he fr ontdoorfac es s outh and the bac k d o o r fa c e s th e n o rth . T h e ro o f is c o n stru c ted w ith m e tal, g ra yin c o lo r a n d is flat. T h e p ro p e rtyh a s a c h a in lin k fe n c e w ith w h ite s ecur i t yl i ni ng. T he addr es s i s di s pl ay ed on a bl ack met al box i n the fr onty ar d, s out h s i de of the pr opertyas 205 i n w hi t e l et t er s , al s o has th e n a m e o f

H ig g in s, a lso in w h ite le tters . A sh e d , w h ite in c o lo r, is l ocat ed on the nor t hw es ts i de of the r es i dence .-4-

R . D oc. 61 at 2 ( M em. O p. & O r der , J une 1, 2005) ( br acke t s om i t t ed) . A j udge a u t h o r i z e d t h e wa r r a n t . T h e r e c o r d d o e s n o ti n c l u d e t h e wa rr a n ti t s e l f, b u twe as s um e thatt he affi davi tw as at t ache d t o i t . B oi l erpl at e l anguage on N ew M e x ico ’s o fficia l se a rc h -w a rra n t fo rm sta tes th a t a c o p yo f th e a ffid a v it i s at t ache d t o t he w arr antand author i zes a s ear ch of the pl ace des cr i bed i n the a ffid a v it. See N .M .R .A ., F o rm 9 -2 1 4 ; s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi l l i am s on , 1 F .3 d 1 1 3 4 , 1 1 3 6 n .1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (a ffid a v it fo r w a rra n t ca n b e c o n sid e re d in a ss e ss in g p a rticu lar ityo f w a rra n t w h e n in c o rp o ra ted b yre fe re n c e a n d a ttac h e d to w arran t) . D e p u ty F ra n c o a n d o th e r o ffic e rs e x e c u te d th e w a rr a n t o n M a y3 1 . M r. B ra k e m a n w a s p re se n t w h e n th e o ffice rs a rriv e d . H e to ld th e m th a t a .2 2 rifle w as i ns i de the R V . I n t he cour s e of e xecut i ng the w arr ant , offi cer s s ear ched the re s id e n c e , th e R V c o n n e c te d to th e re s id e n c e , a n d a n a u to m o b ile o n th e p ro p e rt y . T heyfound a . 22 r i fl e, a . 25 aut om at i c handgun, amm uni t i on, par aphernal i a for m ethamphet ami ne pr oduct i on, and mar ij uana. E vi dence att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng s how ed thatt he affi davi t ’ s des cr i pt i on of the l ocat i on w as ambi guous . T he r ecor ds of the C ountyA s s es s ors how ed that 4242 Sout h M ai n w as t he addr es s fort he ent i r e tr ai l erpark thati ncl uded M r. B ra k e m a n ’s p ro p e rty , an d th a t 2 0 5 M o n k sd a le ( th e a d d re ss in th e a ffid a v it) w as t he mai l i ng addr es s forD avi d H i ggi ns , ow nerof the mobi l e- hom e park and M r. B rakem an’s nei gh bo r and l and l ord. M ai l bo xes fo r the tr ai l ers w ere i n a k i osk-5-

at the co rne r o f M o n k sd ale an d S o u th M ain. S im il ar to M r. B rak em an ’s r es i dence , H i ggi ns ’ s hom e w as w hi t e w i th a r ed s tr i pe and gr ayr oof, and w as at le a s t p a rt ly su rr o u n d e d b ya c h a in -l in k fe n c e lin e d w ith w h ite s e c u ri ty str ip s . T he bl ack mai l box ( l abel ed “H i ggi ns ” and “ 205”) r efe rr ed t o i n the affi davi ts at di r ect l yi n fr ontof hi s hom e r athert han M r . B r akeman’ s . D eputyFr anco t es t i fi ed that to o b tai n the a d d ress fo r th e a ffidav it , h e h ad rev iew ed the S h eriff ’s depart m entfi l es r el at i ng t o M r . B r akeman. T heys how ed thaton pr evi ous o c c a sio n s M r. B ra k e m a n h a d g iv e n law -e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice rs b o th 2 0 5 M o n k sd a le and 42 42 S ou t h M ai n as his add res s, bu the h ad g i ven t he M on ksdale address m or e fr equent l y . B as ed on hi s fami l i ar i tyw i th the ar ea, Fr anco ha d deci ded that the M o n k sd ale a d d ress w as m o re a p p rop ri ate fo r use in the affid av it . T h e o fficers s e a r c h e d o n l y M r . B r a k e m a n ’ s p r o p e r ty. B. Pat - D ow n Se ar c h O n Sept ember15, 2004, Ser geantD ani el O rnel as and D eputyG eor ge W al l nerof the C haves C ount ySher i ff’ s D epart m entw er e on patr ol w hen they dr ove byan R V bei ng dr i ven byM r . B r akeman. A s t he R V pas s ed, O rnel as not i ced i n hi s r earvi ew m i r r ort hatt he R V had no l i cens e pl at e, s o he made a U -turn t o fo l l ow and st op M r. B rakem an. M r. B rakem an p ull ed int o a b usi ness p a rk in g lo t b e fo re O rn e las a c tiv a ted h is e m e rg e n c ylig h ts. A p ick u p tru c k w ith fourpas s enger s s t opped nea rM r . B r akeman’ s vehi cl e. O rnel as r ecogni zed tw o of t he p i cku p’s pass eng ers from previ ou s drug-r el at ed inci den t s.-6-

S e rg e a n t O rn e las sto p p e d n e a r M r. B ra k e m a n ’s v e h icle , tur n e d o n h is emer gency l i ght s , and appr oache d M r . B r akeman. H e as ked M r . B r akeman t o get o u t o f th e v e h icle , butM r . B r akeman di d noti m m edi at el ydo s o. O rnel as and D e p u ty W a lln e r t h e n a p p ro a c h e d th e p ic k u p . T he occ upant s s eemed nervous and w er e eva s i ve i n expl ai ni ng w hattheyw er e doi ng. W al l nernot i ced thatt he pi ckup al s o had no l i cens e pl at e and thatt he i gni t i on had bee n al t er ed s o thati tcoul d be oper at ed w i t h a s cr ew dr i ver . O r nel as as ked the occ upant s t o exi tt he vehi cl e. M eanw hi l e, D eputyW al l nernot i ced thatM r . B r akeman had fi nal l ygot t en o u t o f th e R V a n d a p p e a re d to b e w a lk in g a w a yf ro m th e o ffic e rs . W al l ner or der ed M r . B r akeman t o s t and nea rt he bac k of the R V , and M r . B r akeman compl i ed. A ft erbackup offi cer s arr i ved, W al l neras ked M r . B r akeman for i dent i fi cat i on, w hi ch he pr oduced. W hen W al l neras ked hi m w hetherhe had a ny w e a p o n s o n h im , M r. B ra k e m a n re sp o n d e d th a t h e h a d a p o c k e tk n ife , b u t h e sa id t hat he di d n ot know w here i tw as. D e p u ty W a lln e r c o n d u c te d a p a t- d o w n s e a rc h . W hi l e patt i ng dow n the o u t s i d e o f

M r . Br a k e ma n ’ s c l o t h i n g , h e fe l ta n o bj e c ts h a p e d l i k e a k n i fe . He as ked M r . B r akeman w hetheri tw as t he kni fe he had ment i oned, and M r . B r akeman r es ponded thathe di d notknow . W al l nerr eac hed i nt o the pocke t and r etr i eved a t hi n bl ue ca s e, appr oxi m at el yfi ve t o s i x i nches l ong, an i nch w i de, and hal f an i nch thi ck. I n W al l ner ’ s opi ni on the ca s e coul d have c ont ai ned a k n ife . W hen as ked w hethert he kni fe w as i ns i de the ca s e, M r . B r akeman-7-

r es ponded t hat i t w as hi s gl as s es cas e. W al l nert hen opene d the ca s e and d is c o v e re d s e v e ra l b a g g ie s o f a s u b s ta n c e th a t tu rn e d o u t to b e m e th a m p h e ta m in e . W al l nerarr es t ed M r . B r akeman. L at erhe di s cover ed the kni fe i n one of M r . B r akeman’ s pocket s . A n i nvent or ys ear ch of the R V pr oduced a handgun. C . C ourt P roce edi ngs A ft er bei ng i nd i ct ed o n eightcou nts of d rug and fi rearm offenses, M r . B r akeman fi l ed mot i ons t o s uppr es s evi dence s ei zed dur i ng the M ay31, 2004, s ear ch of hi s hom e and the Sept ember15, 2004, pat - dow n s ear ch. T he dis t ri ctcou rtden i ed b oth m oti on s. O n J une 17, 2005, a j ur yfound M r . B r akeman notgui l tyon fourcount s but convi ct ed hi m on t w o count s of bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of fi r earm s and a m m u n itio n , s ee 1 8 U .S .C . § § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), 9 2 4 (e )(1 ); o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te le s s th a n fiv e g ra m s o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e , s ee 2 1 U. S . C. § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ; and one c ountof ca rry i ng a fi r earm and amm uni t i on d u ri n g a n d in re la tio n to a d ru g -t ra ffic k in g c ri m e , s ee 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 (c )(1 )(A )(I). H e w a s s e n ten c e d to 2 4 8 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . St andard of R evi ew “W hen r evi ew i ng t he deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e ac ceptt he fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the di s t r i ctcour tunl es s t heyar e cl ear l yerr oneous . . . . O n appea l of a deni al of a s uppr es s i on m ot i on, w e cons i dert he t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s and-8-

vi ew t he evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent . ” Uni t ed Stat es v . Hu n n icu tt , 1 3 5 F .3 d 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 4 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). “D e ter m in a tio n s re latin g to the s u ffici en cyo f a sea rch w arran t . . . are co n clus ion s o f law . . . rev iew [e d ] de novo . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. D anhauer , 2 2 9 F .3 d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). B. Par t i c ul ar i t y of t he Se ar c h W ar r ant M r . B r akeman ar gues t hatthe w arr antt o s ear ch hi s pr opertyw as not s uffi ci ent l ypart i cul art o s at i s fythe Four th A m endment . H e cont ends t hatt he w arr ant descr i bed no this propertybu trather that of his neighbo r, M r. H i gg i ns, a n d th a t w h e n th e o ffice rs e x e c u ted th e w a rra n t an d sa w th e m a ilb o x w ith H i ggi ns ’ s name on i t , t hey“w er e puton not i ce thatt hei rw arr antw as not s u ffi c i e n t l yp a r t i c u l a r ” a n d s h o u l d h a v e s t o p p e d t h e s e a r c h . Ap l t . Br . a t1 1 . He fur t hercl ai m s t hatt he pr oper t ydes cr i pt i on and the addr es s w er e i ncorr ect , s o t he s ol e s our ce of

i nform at i on r egar di ng the pl ace t o be s ear ched w as t he exe cut i ng offi cer s ’ know l edge, i n contr avent i on of Wi l l i am s on , 1 F. 3d at1136 ( w arr ant i nval i d beca us e “the off i cer ’ s know l edge [ cannotbe] t he so le s our ce of info rm ati o n iden ti fy ing the p h y sical l o ca ti o n o f th e [ p lace to b e se arc h ed ]”). T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t sta tes th a t w a rra n ts s h a ll i ss u e o n ly“ u p o n p ro b a b le caus e” a nd t hatt heym us t“part i cul ar l ydes cr i b[e] t he pl ace t o be s ear ched, and t he per s ons ort hi ngs t o be s ei zed. ” U . S. C ons t . amend. I V . A s w e have s t at ed, “The dangert hatt he part i cul ardes cr i pt i on r equi r ements eeks t o avoi d i s t he thr eat of gene r al and expl or at or ys ear ches . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Lora- Solano , 330 F. 3d-9-

1288, 1294 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) . A ccor di ngl y , “[p] r act i cal acc ur acyr atherthan tech n ical pre cisi o n co n tr o ls” o u r de term ination o f th e a d eq u ac yo f a w arran t’ s d e s c ri p tio n o f

th e p la c e to b e s e a rc h e d . Id. at1293 ( br acke t s and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “A t echni cal l yw r ong addr es s does noti nval i dat e a w arr anti f i tot herw i s e des cr i bes the pr emi s es w i th s uffi ci entpart i cul ar i tys o that t he pol i ce c an as cert ai n and i dent i fythe pl ace t o be s ear ched. ” Id. A s an i ni t i al m at t erw e not e thatthe r ecor d on appea l does notcont ai n the w arr ant , anyacc om pany i ng at t achment s ( s uch as the affi davi t ) , oranyhel pful m aps , phot os , orot herexhi bi t s . T he onl yavai l abl e des cr i pt i on of the pl ace t o be s ear ched i s t hatquot ed i n t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on, w hi ch pr es um abl yt ook t he d e s c ri p tio n f

ro m th e a ffid a v it. O u r rev iew o f th is i ssu e is ac co rdin g lyv ery li m it ed . A s M r. B rak em an ap p ea rs t o ac k n o w ledg e in h is brief b yrep ea ti n g w o rd forw or d m uch of the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct s , w e mustacc eptt he fa ct s as det erm i ned byt he di s t r i ctcour ti n i t s J une 1, 2005, or der , and r evi ew onl yt he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s le g a l c o n c lu s io n s . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Ma rtin , 15 F. 3d 943, 944–45 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) ( w e adoptdi s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs w hen d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th o se fin d in g s a n d th e re c o rd is in su fficie n t fo r u s to re v iew th e m ); c

f. Uni t ed Stat es v. B r ew er , 630 F. 2d 795, 803 ( 10th C i r . 1980) ( defe ndant s ’ cl ai m t hats ear ch w arr antw as defe ct i ve i s notr evi ew abl e w hen ap p ell ate rec o rd d id n o t i n clud e the ch all en g ed affid av it ).-10-

T h e w a rra n t’s d e sc rip tio n w a s s u fficie n tlyp a rticu lar . In d e e d , it des cr i bes

— i n s om e det ai l

— M r . B r akeman’ s pr operty . M r . B r akeman acknow l edged a s m uch w hen he c oncede d ator al ar gum entthathi s pr opertyw as att he “phy s i cal l ocat i on” of 205 M onks dal e. T he pr obl em i s t hatt he des cr i pt i on al s o fi t s M r . H i ggi ns ’ s pr operty . A nd th e C o u n tyA ss e ss o r’s re c o rd s s u g g e st th a t “o fficia lly ” th e a d d re ss in th e a ffid a v it is th a t o f

H ig g in s ra th e r th a n M r. B ra k e m a n . N e v e rth e les s, a s a “ [ p ]ra c tica l” m a tte r, Lora- Sol ano , 330 F. 3d at1293 ( br acke t s and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) , t he ambi gui t yw as i m m at er i al . T o the ext entt hatt he w arr antw as uncl earas t o w hethert he pr oper tyt o be s ear ched w as H i ggi ns ’ s or M r. B ra k e m a n ’s , D e p u ty F ra n c o ’s p e rs o n a l k n o w le d g e re s o lv e d th e m a tte r. M r. B rakem an co rr ect l yci t es Wi l l i am s on , 1 F. 3d at1136, fort he pr opos i t i on t hat an off i cer ’ s know l edge c annotbe the so le m e a n s o f d e ter m in in g w h a t p ro p e rtyis to b e se arc h ed . B u t “[t]his co u rth as n o t go n e so fa r as to sa ythat an o fficer’s k n o w led g e m a yn o t cu re a tec h n ica llyin a c c u ra te w a rra n t— Wi l l i am s on acknow l edged j us tt he oppos i t e, pr ovi ded thatt he off i cer ’ s know l edge i s nott he so le s our ce of

the l ocat i on. ” Lora- Solano , 3 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 4 ; s ee Har m an v. P ol l ock , 446 F. 3d 1069, 1079 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( percur i am) ( “i nacc ur aci es ” i n t he w arr antw er e i ncons equent i al beca us e of the exe cut i ng offi cer ’ s “per s onal k n o w led g e o f

th e p h y sic a l d e sc rip tio n o f th e stru c tu re s to b e se a rc h e d ” ); Uni t ed S ta tes v . O c c h ip in ti , 998 F. 2d 791, 799 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( “[T] he know l edge of t he-11-

exec ut i ng offi cercan be cons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng the s uffi ci encyof the d e sc rip tio n [ in a w a rra n t].”); Uni t ed Stat es v. St ur m os ki , 9 7 1 F .2 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 8 (1 0 th C i r . 1992) ( pr es ence of off i cerfami l i arw i th the pl ace t o be s ear ched “ pr ovi ded a d d itio n a l r e lia b ility th a t th e c o rr e c t p re m is e s w o u ld b e s e a rc h e d ” ). B u t cf. G r oh v. R am i r ez , 540 U . S. 551, 560 ( 2004) ( Four th A m endmentr equi r ementthat “per s ons ort hi ngs t o be s ei zed” be part i cul ar l ydes cr i bed notm etw hen w arr ant fai l ed t o des cr i be the i t ems atal l beca us e “ther e ca n be no w r i t t en as s ur ance that the M ag istrate ac tuallyfo u n d p rob ab le ca u se to sea rch fo r, an d to se ize, ev ery it em m en ti o n ed in the affid av it ”). W e d isag ree w ith M r. B rak em an ’s co n tention that D ep u tyF ran co ’s k n o w le d g e w a s th e s o le s o u rc e o f th e o ffic e rs ’ i n fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g th e lo c a tio n . T h e d e s c ri p tio n p ro v id e d in th e a ffid a v it w a s in m a n yre s p e c ts q u ite d e ta ile d . Ind ee d , li sti n g the a d d ress a s 2 0 5 M o n k sd ale a p p ea rs t o h av e p rov ided m o re as s i s t ance t o t he exe cut i ng offi cer s than w oul d have the ac tual m ai l i ng addr es s of t he pr oper t y— 4242 Sout h M ai n, the addr es s of the ent i r e mobi l e- hom e park. T he des cr i pt i on w as s uffi ci ent l yacc ur at e thatanyambi gui tycoul d be cur ed by Fr anco’ s per s onal know l edge. W e conc l ude thatt he s ear ch w arr antw as s uffi ci ent l ypart i cul art o s at i s fy th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. C . P at - D ow n Search-12-

M r . B r akeman next chal l enges the pat - dow n s ear ch. H e cont ends t hat D eputyW al l ner ’ s openi ng of the gl as s es cas e vi ol at ed the Four th A m endment beca us e i tw as bey ond t he s cope of an otherw i s e perm i s s i bl e s ear ch. H e conc edes t hat W al l ner w as j ust i fi ed in con du ct i ng t he p at -dow n an d thatt he g l asses case c o u ld h a v e c o n tain e d a w e a p o n . B u t h e a ss e rts th a t W a lln e r w a s n o t ju stified in o p e n in g th e g las se s c a se o n c e it w a s re m o v e d f ro m h is p o c k e t an d o u t o f h is r eac h. “[W ] hen pol i ce offi cer s have a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on bas ed on s peci fi c and a rticu lab le fa c ts th a t a p ro p e rlyd e tain e d d riv e r m a yb e d a n g e ro u s a n d m a yg a in im m ed iat e c o n tr o l of

w ea p o n s, theym ayco n d u ct a w ea p o n s sea rch o f th e d ri v er’s per s on and the pas s engercompar t m entof the vehi cl e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P alm er , 3 6 0 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). W ith r es pectt o w hethera s us pect“maygai n i m m edi at e contr ol ” of a w eapon, w e have obs erved that“( 1) t he fa ctt hatt he det ai nee i s ‘ undert he contr ol ’ of off i cer s does notel i m i nat e the r i s k t hathe w i l l gai n acc es s t o a w eapon, and ( 2) t he t i m e per i od dur i ng w hi ch the det ai nee ‘ m aygai n i m m edi at e contr ol ’ i s t he ent i r e per i od fr om t he i ni t i al s t op t o t he det ai nee’ s departur e. ” Id. ; s ee Mi chigan v. Long , 46 3 U. S. 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 5 1 -52 (19 8 3 ). A ccor di ngl y , a w eapons s ear ch mayext end t o cont ai ner s notw i thi n the i m m edi at e r eac h of the s us pect . I n P alm erw e uphel d the s ear ch of a l ocked g lov e b o x in an au tom o b il e e v en tho u g h the d efen d an t w as se ated in the o fficer’s-13-

p a tr o l c a r. See 3 6 0 F . 3 d a t1 2 4 8 . We r eas oned thatt he s ear ch of the compar t m entw as j us t i fi ed eve n i f the defendantcoul d notacc es s t he gl ove box at t he mom entof the s ear ch bec aus e he “ w oul d cert ai nl yhave ha d acc es s t o the gun [i n t he gl ove box] aft ert he ci t at i on w as i s s ued and he w as r el eas ed t o go. ” Id. ; s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. McC l i nnhan , 660 F. 2d 500, 504 ( D . C . C i r . 1981) ( offi cer coul d s ear ch br i efc as e forw eapons w hen i tw as r emoved fr om defe ndant ’ s r eac h b e c a u se “ [ m ]e re lyse p a ra tin g M c C lin n h a n f ro m h is b rie fc a se . . . w o u ld o b v iate t he dange ronl yfort he l ength of the s t op; ats om e poi ntt heyw oul d be compel l ed t o r etur n t he br i efc as e t o [hi m ] and thus pl ace t hemsel ves i n the dange rt hey s o u g h t to a v o id ” ), abr ogat ed on othergr ounds as r ecogniz ed by Uni t ed Stat es v. Thomps on , 2 3 4 F . 3 d 7 2 5 , 7 2 8 (D . C . C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he gl as s es cas e coul d have c ont ai ned a w eapon, s uch as t he kni fe M r. B ra k e m a n p ro c laim e d to h a v e . C o n se q u e n tly , D e p u tyW a lln e r’s se a rc h c o u ld ext end t o i t s cont ent s t o ens ur e thatnothi ng danger ous w as i ns i de. E ven though M r . B r akeman w as det ai ned and the gl as s es cas e w as no l ongeri n hi s pos s es s i on, M r . B r akeman m i ghthave br oken fr ee a nd s ei zed the ca s e; and i f he w er e l at er r el eas ed, he w oul d have r egai ned ac ces s w hen W al l nerr eturned the unopene d g la s s e s c a s e to h im . See i d. Perhaps m eas ur es othert han s ear chi ng the gl as s es cas e coul d have e ffe ct i vel ypr ot ect ed the off i cer s ; butt he Supr eme C our thas “not re q u ire d th a t o ffice rs a d o p t alte rn a tiv e m e a n s to e n su re th e ir sa fe tyin o rd e r to avoi d t he i nt rus i on i nvol ved i n [an i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on] . ” Long , 463 U . S. at-14-

1 0 5 2 . T h e se a rc h o f

th e c a se w a s th u s ju stified a n d w a s p ro p e rly“ c o n fin e d in s cope t o an i nt rus i on r eas onabl ydes i gned t o di s coverguns , kni ves , cl ubs , orot her hi dden i ns t rum ent s fort he as s aul tof [the off i cer s ] . ” Te rr

y v . O h io , 392 U . S. 1, 2 9 (19 6 8 ). M r . B r akeman cont ended a tor al ar gum ent( al though noti n hi s br i ef) that D e p u tyW a lln e r sh o u ld n o t h a v e o p e n e d th e g las se s c a se b e fo re c o m p letin g h is pat - dow n s ear ch t o s ee w hethert he kni fe M r . B r akeman cl ai m ed t o have w as el s ew her e on hi s body . O nl yi f thi s s ear ch had notpr oduced the kni fe, he ar gued, w oul d W al l nerhave be en j us t i fi ed i n openi ng the gl as s es cas e. T hi s ar gum entnot o n ly w a s ra is e d to o la te , s ee Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al ez - C or onado , 419 F. 3d 1090, 1094 n. 7 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( ar gum entr ai s ed forfi r s tt i m e ator al ar gum entneed notbe addr es s ed) , butal s o i gnor es t he purpos e and j us t i fi cat i on of a w eapons se a rc h . A w e a p o n s s e a rc h d u rin g a tra ffic s to p is ju stified w h e n th e re is “r eas onabl e s us pi ci on bas ed on s peci fi c and a r t i cul abl e fa ct s ” thatt he s ubj ect “maybe dange r ous and maygai n i m m edi at e contr ol of w eapons . ” P alm er , 360 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 6 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). M r. B ra k e m a n d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t a w e a p o n s s e a rc h o f h is p e rso n w a s ju stified . S u c h a se a rc h d id n o t n e e d to b e c o n fin ed to find ing the s ing le w ea p o n M r. B rak em an p rofesse d to h av e; rathe r, W a lln e r c o u ld lo o k fo r a n ya n d a ll w e a p o n s h e m a yh a v e p o s s e s s e d . See i d. at 1248 ( “Pr ot ect i ve s ear ches ar e onl yl i m i t ed i n the s ens e thatt he off i cer conduct i ng t he pr ot ect i ve s ear ch mustfi r s thave a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on thatt he-15-

s us pecti s danger ous and the pr ot ect i ve s ear ch mustbe di r ect ed onl yt o l ocat i ons w hi ch maycont ai n a w eapon a nd t o w hi ch the s us pectm ayhave a cce s s . ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . W hen a s us pects t at es thathe i s carry i ng a part i cul ar w e a p o n a n d a n o ffice r fin d s th a t w e a p o n d u rin g a p a t-d o w n se a rc h , the o ffice r is no trequi red t o assum e t hat the suspe cti s carry i ng no otherw eapo ns. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e se a rc h o f th e g las se s c a se d id n o t v io late M r. B ra k e m a n ’s F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e A F F IR M th e d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t.