T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t er m s and condi t i ons of 10 T H C IR . R . 3 6 .3 A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has ** det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of thi s appea l . See F E D . R . A PP . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; 1 0 t h Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### N ovemb er2,2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C I R C U I T
UNI T E D S T A T E S OF AM E R I C A ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v . W I LLI E EA R L FLO W E R S , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 5149 ( N . D . O kl ahoma) ( NO. 0 4 - C R - 2 1 2 - T C K )

O R DER AND J UDGM E N T *
B efo re HENR Y , B R I S C O E , and O ’ BRI E N , C i rcui tJudg es. **
W i l l i e Ear l Fl ow er s w as convi ct ed aft era j ur yt r i al of pos s es s i on of a fir e a rm a fte r a fo rm e r fe lo n yc o n v ic tio n , a v io la tio n o f1 8 U .S .C . § 922( g) ( 1) . T he di s t r i ctcour tfound thatM r . Fl ow er s had bee n convi ct ed of t hr ee pr i orfel oni es , appl i ed the A r m ed C ar eerC r i m i nal A ct( A C C A ) , 182

U . S. C . § 924( e) , and s ent ence d hi m t o 264 m onths ’ i ncar cer at i on, fol l ow ed b yfiv e y e a rs ’ s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . O n a p p e a l, M r. F lo w e rs a rg u e s th a t (1 ) th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence found i n hi s cardur i ng hi s O ct ober 15, 2004 det ent i on; ( 2) t he courterr ed i n concl udi ng t hathi s 1991 O kl ahoma convi ct i on fores cape fr om a pena l i ns t i tut i on cons t i tut ed a
v io len t fe lo n yu n d e r th e A C C A ; an d (3 ) th e c o u rt v io late d h is S ix th A m en d m en t r igh ts byfa il ing to req u ir e the g o v ern m en t t o p rov e to a jury bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hathe had pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of vi ol ent fel on i es. W e a re n o t persu ad ed b yM r. F low ers’s arg u m en ts an d there fo re affi r m hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence .
I . BA C K G R OUND O n O ct ober15, 2004, T ul s a, O kl ahoma pol i ce offi cer s r ece i ved a rep o rto f a d o m esti c d istu rba n ce at t h e h o m e o f L iza H arring , M r. F low ers’s g irlfr ien d . W h e n p o lice o ffice rs a rriv e d a t M s. H a rrin g ’s d o o r, sh e to ld t hem t hatM r . Fl ow er s had come t o herhous e w i t h a handgun a nd had p o in te d it a t h e r. Shor t l yaft ert he offi cer s arr i ved, M r . Fl ow er s came t o t he door . T he o ffice rs in stru c ted h im to sh o w h is h a n d s, tu rn a ro u n d b a c k w a rd s, a n d w a lk3

to w a rd th e m slo w ly . M r. F lo w e rs c o m p lied , an d th e o ffice rs p lac e d h im in han dcu ffs and patt ed h i m do w n. A ft er that i nspecti on reveal ed n o w eapo ns, th e o ffice rs p u t M r. F lo w e rs in a p a tro l ca r. T h e yp lac e d th e c o n ten ts o fh is p o c k e ts, in c lu d in g h is c a r k e y s, o n th e h o o d o fa p a tro l ca r. O ffice r K e v in D or s eyas ked forM r . Fl ow er s ’ s i dent i fi cat i on w hi l e otheroffi cer s cont i nued to ta lk to M s . H a rr in g . M s . H arr i ng t ol d t he offi cer s t hatt he gun M r . Fl ow er s had poi nt ed at h e r m ig h t b e in h e r b a c k y a rd , b u t, after th e o ffice rs w e re u n a b le to fin d it there , sh e sa id tha t i t m igh t be in M r. F low ers’s ca r. S erg ea n t R o b ert R ohl off pr ocee ded t o r ead M r . Fl ow er s hi s M i r anda r i ght s and as ked w hat had hap pen ed. M r. F l ow ers den i ed thathe h ad b rough ta gu n to M s. H arr i ng’ s hous e ort hatanyguns w er e i n hi s car . Ser geantR ohl off a s ked h im if h e w o u ld h av e a n yo bjecti o n to the o fficers se arc h ing the c ar, an d M r. F lo w e rs s tate d th a t h e w o u ld n o t. T he offi cer s t hen di s cover ed thatM r . Fl ow er s ’ carw as l ocked a nd as ked hi m fort he key s . M r . Fl ow er s t ol d t hem he di d notknow w her e the key s w er e, butO ffi cerD or s eyt hen r emem ber ed thatkey s had bee n t aken fr om M r . Fl ow er s ’ s pocketand pl ace d on t he patr ol car . O ffi cerR ohl off
r ecove r ed the key s , opened the trunk, and di s cover ed a br i efc as e cont ai ni ng t w o h and gu ns. A fter a g ran d juryind ict ed h im fo r po sses sion o f a firearm after a4

fo rm e r fe lo n yc o n v ic tio n , in v io la tio n o f1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ), M r. Fl ow er s fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s , ar gui ng t hatt he s ear ch of the trunk w as th e fru it o fa n u n la w fu l d e te n tio n a n d a rr e s t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n d u c te d a h e a ri n g a n d th e n d e n ie d th e m o tio n . T h e c o u rtrea so n ed that the o fficers h ad rea so n ab le su sp ici o n to d etain M r. Fl ow er s w hen theyfi r s tarr i ved atM s . H arr i ng’ s hous e and thatt heyhad pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es thi m once theyl earned thathe had poi nt ed a gun a t her . M or eover , t he courts ai d, M r . Fl ow er s had cons ent ed t o t he s ear ch of h is c a r. T h e ju ry c o n v ic te d M r. F lo w e rs o fth e § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ) fir e a rm c h a rg e . T he pr es ent ence r epor tconcl uded thatM r . Fl ow er s w as an arm ed ca r eer c rim in a l b e c a u se h e h a d th re e p rio r c o n v ictio n s fo r c rim e s o fv io len c e : firstd e g r e e r o b b e r yi n 1 9 6 7 , s e c o n d
- d e g r e e b u r g l a r yi n 1 9 8 9 , a n d e s c a p e fr o m a penal i ns t i tut i on i n 1991. M r . Fl ow er s obj ect ed on the gr ounds t hathe had a Si xt h A m endment r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al on t he i s s ue of w hetherhe had be en convi ct ed of thes e offens es . H ow ever , he di d notobj ectt o t he pr es ent ence r epor t ’ s char act er i zat i on of the offens es as cr i m es of vi ol ence . T h e d istri ct co u rto v erru led th e o bjecti o n an d sen tenc ed M r. F low ers to 2 6 4 m o n th s ’ i n c a rc e ra tio n , fo llo w e d b yfiv e y e a rs ’ s u p e rv is e d re le a s e .
I I . DI S C U S S I O N5

M r . Fl ow er s does notdi s put e the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs r egar di ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s , and w e ther efor e exa m i ne de novo the q u e stio n o fw h e th e r th e o ffice rs v io late d h is rig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rth A m en d m en t. U n it ed S tat es v . W il li am s, 2 7 1 F . 3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 6 (10 th C ir . 2001) . W i t h r egar d t o t he cha r act er i zat i on of hi s pr i ores cape convi ct i on, w e n o te t h at M r. F low ers d id n o t r aise tha t i ssu e in th e d istri ct co u rt pr ocee di ngs , and s o ourr evi ew i s forpl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. V i s i nai z, 428 F. 3d 1300, 1308 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . W e exa m i ne de novo the ques t i on of
w h ethe r th e S ixth A m en d m en t r eq u ir es th e g o v ern m en t t o su b m itto a ju ry t he fa ctof M r. F l ow ers ’s pri or conv i ct i on s.

A . M oti o n to Su p p ress M r. F lo w e rs c o n c e d e s th a t “[ t]h e o ffice rs w e re in iti a llyju stified in or der i ng [hi m ] atgunpoi ntt o w al k backw ar ds t o t hem, and i n handcuffi ng [hi m ] ” bec aus e “[ t he offi cer s ] w er e i nves t i gat i ng a r epor tt hata man had a gun, and the ca l l erhad ver i fi ed t o pol i ce that[M r . Fl ow er s ] pr evi ous l yhad a gun. ” A pl t ’ s B r . at10. H ow ever , M r . Fl ow er s ar gues t hatt he det ent i on b e c a m e u n re a s o n a b le a fte r t h e o ffic e rs fri s k e d h im a n d fo u n d n o w e a p o n s . A tt hatpoi nt , he as s er t s , he no l ongerpr es ent ed a da nger , and the cont i nued us e of ha ndcuffs w as unr eas onabl e undert he Four t h A m endment . T he s ear ch of hi s car , he conc l udes , w as t he frui tof thatunl aw ful det ent i on.6

“The al l ow abl e s cope ofan i nves t i gat i ve det ent i on cannotbe det er m i ned byr efe r ence t o a br i ght
- l i ne rul e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. N eff, 300 F. 3d 1217, 1220 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . “[C]omm on s ens e and or di naryhum an exper i ence m us tgovern overr i gi d cr i t er i a. ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks o m itt e d ). A c c o rd in g ly , ev e n th o u g h th e u se o fh a n d c u ffs is n o t ju stified in e v e ryin v e stig a tiv e d e ten tio n , “a T e rrysto p d o e s n o t b e c o m e u n re a so n a b le j us tbeca us e pol i ce offi cer s us e handc uffs on a s us pect . ” I d. T he us e of han dcu ffs du ri ng an invest i gati ve d et enti on i s r easona ble i f i ti s

“ re a so n a b lyn e c e ss a ryto p ro tec t [ th e o ffice rs’ ] p e rso n a l sa fe tya n d to m ai nt ai n t he s t atus quo dur i ng t he cour s e of [ t he det ent i on] . ” I d. at1220- 2 1 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A pp l y i ng t his st and ard, w e con cl ud e t hat the o ffi cers ’ cont i nu ed u se o fh a n d c u ffs a fter th e yp a tted d o w n M r. F lo w e rs d id n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m en d m en t. E v en tho u g h the o fficers fo u n d n o w ea p o n s in M r. F low ers’s pocket s , M s . H arr i ng’ s r epor tt hatM r . Fl ow er s had bee n arm ed i ndi cat ed t hathe mi ghts t i l l pos e a thr eatt o t hei rs afe t y . See i d. ( concl udi ng t hat o ffice rs d id n o t ac t u n re a so n a b lyb yc o n tin u in g to h o ld su sp e c ts in h an d cu ffs w h il e the ysea rch ed a c ar fo r w ea p o n s). A cc o rdin g ly , the o fficers
w e re a u th o riz e d to k e e p M r. F lo w e rs in h a n d c u ffs w h ile th e yc o n tin u e d to s e a rc h fo r w e a p o n s . M or eover , as t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed, once the offi cer s r ece i ved7

fur t heri nfor m at i on fr om M s . H arr i ng as t o M r . Fl ow er s ’ s t hr eat eni ng conduct , t heyhad pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es thi m . A tt hatpoi nt , t he cont i nued appl i cat i on of handc uffs w as j us t i fi ed on thatgr ound as w el l . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pat ane, 304 F. 3d 1013, 1017 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( “Pol i ce a r e ent i t l ed t o bas e an a r r es ton a ci t i zen c om pl ai nt. . . of a vi ct i m . . . w i t hout i nves t i gat i ng t he trut hful nes s of the compl ai nt , unl es s . . . t heyhave r eas on to b e liev e it’s fish y .”) ( c iti n g G u z e ll v . H ill e r, 2 2 3 F .3 d 5 1 8 , 5 1 9 -2 0 (7 th C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) , r ev’ d on ot hergr ounds , 542 U .S . 6 3 0 (2 0 0 4 ); s e e g e n e ra lly 2 W a yn e R . L a F a v e , Sear ch and Seiz ur e § 3 . 4 ( a ) , a t2 2 4 - 2 2 5 ( 4 t h e d . 2 0 0 4 ) ( n o t i n g th a t“ [ b ] yfa rt h e p r e v a i l i n g v i e w ” i s t hatcorr obor at i on i s notes s ent i al i n vi ct i m - w i t nes s cas es , and ar gui ng “thatw hen an a ver age c i t i zen t ender s i nfor m at i on t o t he pol i ce, t he pol i ce sh o u ld b e p e rm itt e d to a ss u m e th a t th e ya re d e a lin g w ith a c re d ib le p e rso n in t he abs ence of s peci al ci r cumst ance s s ugges t i ng thats uch mi ghtnotbe the c a s e ” ). T hus , t he s ear ch of M r . Fl ow er s ’ s carw as nott he frui tof an unl aw ful d eten ti o n o r arrest. A d d it ion all y , as th e d istri ct co u rtn o ted, M r. F low ers pr es ent ed no evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hathi s cons entt o t he s ear ch w as t he p ro d u c e o fp o lice c o e rc io n . A c c o rd in g ly , the d istric t co u rt c o rre c tly c o n c lu d e d th a t th e se a rc h c o m p o rte d w ith th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t.8

B . E s cape C onvi c t i o n W e r evi ew forpl ai n err orM r . Fl ow er s ’ s cont ent i on t hathi s 1991 e s c a p e c o n v ic tio n d id n o t c o n s titu te a v io le n t fe lo n yu n d e r t h e A C C A . In o rd e r to p re v a il, M r. F lo w e rs m u st d e m o n stra te: “ (1 ) e rro r, (2 ) th a t is pl ai n, and ( 3) t hatt he err oraffect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” V i s i nai z, 428 F. 3d at 1308. E ven i f M r . Fl ow er s m akes t hi s s how i ng, w e mayexer ci s e di s cr et i on t o corr ectt he err oronl yi f i t“s er i ous l yaffect [s ] t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , or p u b l i c r e p u t a t i o n ofj u d i c i a l pr o c e e d i n g s . ” U n i t e d St a t e s v. O l a n o , 50 7 U. S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 (19 9 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). H er e, M r . Fl ow er s conce des t hatt her e i s no err orand thathi s couns el has “pr es erved the cl ai m i n or dert o pur s ue r ever s al of thi s pr ece dentbyen b an c o r S u p rem e C o u rtrev iew . ” A p lt ’s B r. at 13 . A s M r. F low ers acknow l edges , w e have adopt ed a c at egor i cal appr oach t o es cape convi ct i ons , hol di ng t hatt hes e convi ct i ons cons t i tut e cr i m es of vi ol ence des pi t e the under l y i ng ci r cumst ance s . See U ni t ed St at es v. M oudy , 132 F. 3d 618, 620 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( s t at i ng t hat“[e ] veryes cape s cena r i o i s a pow der keg, w hi ch mayorm aynotexpl ode i nt o vi ol ence and r es ul ti n phy s i cal i nj ur yt o s om eone a tanygi ven t i m e, butw hi ch al w ay s has t he s er i ous po t enti al t o d o so” an d thatt his charact eri zat i on app l i es “t o all escapes, w hetherornotvi ol ence w as actual l yi nvol ved”) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. G o sli n g , 3 9 F . 3 d 1 1 4 0 , 1 1 4 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )).9

C . S ix th A m e n d m e n t C la im F in a lly , M r. F lo w e rs a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt v io late d h is S ix th A m endmentr i ght s byfai l i ng t o s ubm i tt he fa ctof hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons t o a j ur y . T hi s ar gum enti s al s o for ecl os ed byci r cui tpr ece dent . See U ni t ed St at es v. M oor e, 401 F. 3d 1220, 1223, 1226 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( hol di ng t hat “the fa ctof pr i orconvi ct i ons under§ 924( e) need notbe cha r ged i n an i ndi ct m entand pr oven t o a j ur y ” and a l s o t hat“the governm entneed not char ge i n an i ndi ctm entand pr ove t o a j ur yt hata defendant ’ s pr i or co n v ict ion co n sti tutes a ‘v iolen t felon y ’ un d er § 9 2 4 (e)”).

I I I . CO N C L U S I O N A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM M r . Fl ow er s ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence .
E n tered fo r th e C o u rt R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge