NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0002n.06 No. 08-5947 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA , Plaintif f-Appellee , v. DE NN YSO N W AR F IELD , Defendant-

Appellant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: NO RRIS, CO LE, and K ETHL ED G E, C ir c uitJudg e s. COLE, Circuit Jud ge . D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt De nn y so n Warf

ie ld a pp e a ls the de nia l of

his motion to suppress drug s seized at a jail after he droppe d them in anticipation of a strip-se arc h for suspected posse ssion of contraba nd. For the re asons below, we AF F IRM
. I. On Fe bruar

y 14 and 28, 2006, Ke ntucky State Police Detec tive Br ad Ha rper worke d with a confide ntial informant who succ essfully arr ang ed two purc hases of coca ine and c ocaine base f rom Warfield. Af

ter e ach tr ansac ti o n, Detec tive Har per r ecove red a

pproxi mately

three ounces of

coca ine
or coc aine ba se fr om the informant’s pur chase from Warfie ld. The Ke ntucky

state police the n had the infor mant arr ang e to meet Warf ield on Marc h 16, 2006 to purcha se an a dditional eight ounces of cra ck coca ine, and they lear ned fr om the informantNo. 08-5947

US A v . W ar fie ld

- 2 - that Warfield wou l d b e d ri v i n g the black pic k-up truck he had used dur ing the Fe bruar y 28, 2006 transac tion. Having perf

ormed a backg round che ck on Warfie ld prior to Marc h 16, Detec tive Har per knew that Warf

ield was driving on a suspended license. Acc ording to Detec tive Har per, w ho was following Warfield’s truc k on Marc h 16 in an unmarke d police ca r, Warfie ld was swer

ving into and out of the eme rg ency

lane on the hig hway . Moreove r, whe n two state t rooper s trave ling in mar ked po lic e c ars a

pp ro a c he d Warf

ie ld f ro m th e op po sit e dir e c tio n, War fi e ld f a ile d to dim

his lig hts
. The two state tr oopers ( one of w hom had a drug -dete ction dog ) stopped Warfie ld before he could meet the inf

ormant, havinghear d over the police radio that Warfield had been swe rving ; they pe rf or me d the ir own lic e ns e c he c k of War fi e ld, and the n a rr e ste d h im f

or op e ra tin g a mot or ve hic le with a suspended dr iver’s lice n s e. Af t er p l acingWarfield in one of the police c ars, the of

fice rs walked the dog around Warf ield’s t ruck; the dog a lerted to the dr iver’s door and subseque ntly

to the driver’ s seat, indicating the odor of drug s. The dogalso aler ted to Warfield’s truc k’s tailg ate, whe re Warfi el d h ad sat brie fly while beingarr ested. A pat-down sea rch of Warfield and se arc h of War fi e ld’ s v e hic le re ve a le d n o c on tr a ba nd or we a po ns . The police then transpor

ted W arf ield to the W arr en County Reg ional J ail. Detec tive Har per rela y ed the infor

mation to the office rs at the jail re g ardingthe drug -dete ction dog ’s indication of the pr e se nc e of

dr ug s whe re War fi e ld h a d sat ins ide and ou tsi de his ve hic le and the of fi c e rs ’ f a ilure to find any drug s in W arf

ield’s vehicle or in a pat-down s ear ch of him. Ba sed on this information, a nine-y ear -old drugconviction, and Warf ield’s re fusa l t o s u bmit to a searc h without his l awy er pr e se nt, the po lic e at th e ja il s us pe c te d Warf ie ld o f p os se ssi ng dr

ug s on h is p e rs on

and too k h im i nto
a room for an unclothed pat-down sear ch. After the pol ice took him into a sepa rate room but befor eNo. 08-5947

US A v . W ar fie ld

- 3 - the y c ou ld c on du c t th e str ip- se arc h, War fi e ld d ro pp e d a sma ll b a g g ie that he had c on c e a le d in his crotc h are a. The bag g ie containe d approximatel y eig ht ounces of w hite powder , which tested positive for cr ack c ocaine
. Warfield wa s su

b s e q uently prosec uted for distribution of fifty g rams or more of coc aine ba se, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) a nd (b)( 1)(A) (iii), and distribution of c ocaine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and ( b )( 1 )( C ). W arfield moved to suppress the c ocaine as the fr uit of an illega l searc h, but the district court denie d h i s motion after a suppression hea

ring . Warfield then
e nte re d a c on dit ional guilty

ple a ma int a ini nghis a

bil ity to a pp e a l th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of his moti o n to suppress. The district c ourt sentenc ed Warfie ld to 151 months of imprisonment, to be fo llo we d b y

fi ve y e ars of su

pe rv ise d re le a se . War fi e ld time ly a pp e a le d the de nia l of his mot ion to
su pp re ss. II. I n assessing the denial of a motion to suppress, we revie w t he dis trict court’s findings of f act for c lear err or and its conclusions of lawde novo. United States v. Foster , 3 76 F .3 d 5 77 , 5 83 (6 th Cir. 2004). We view the e vidence “in the lig ht most l ikely to support the district court’s de cision.” United States v. Navarro-Camac ho , 186 F.3d 701, 705 (6th Cir. 1999) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). Warfield objects centr ally to the threatened strip-se arc h at the jail, the anticipation of which led him to drop the bag g ie containing the cra ck cocaine. Be cause it was mer ely the anticipation of
a s t ri p -s ea rc h t h at l edt o W ar fi el d ’s ac t i o n , t h e go v ernm en tar gu es t h at W ar fi el d ab an d o n edt h e d ru gs be fo re the a lle g e d s e arc h, and that War fi e ld’ s c ha lle ng e to t he se arc h is the re fo re be sid e s th e po int
.No. 08-5947

US A v . W ar fie ld

- 4 - This may be so, see U

nited States v. Robinson , 3 90 F .3 d 8 53 , 8 73 -7 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 4) (“ I f p ro pe rt

y has bee n ‘aba

ndoned’ . . . , the Four

th Amendment is not violated throug h the sear ch or se izure of t h i s p ro p er t y . ” (c i t at i o no m i t t ed )) , b u twe p ro ce edas s u m i n g arguendo that the seizure’s leg itimacy is tied to that of t he st rip-sea rch, beca use t he threat of t he search spurred Warf ield’s aba ndonment of the bag g ie. Be fore rea ching that issue, howeve r, we must a ddress the proprie t y o f W ar field’s detention in the first plac e. War fi e ld d oe s n ot, no r c ou ld h e , c on te st that th e Ke ntu c ky state po lic e c ou ld p ro pe rl y a rr e st him f or driving on a suspende d license. See K Y . R EV . S TAT . §§ 186.620(2), 186.990( 3), 532.090(2)
. The police there fore did not need re asonable suspicion or probable cause of Warfie ld’s commission of any other c rime to take him into custody and search him incident to arrest. See U nited States v. Robinson , 4 14 U. S. 2 18 , 2 33 -3 5 ( 19 73 ); Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th , 549 F.3d 355, 360- 61 (6 th Cir. 2008). More over, “[a] police officer ’s determination as t o how and wher e to sea rch the person of a suspec t whom he has a

rre sted . . . , while base d on the nee d to disarm and to discover evidenc e, does not depe nd on . . . [t he possibility ] t hat wea pons or evidenc e would in fa ct be f ound upon the person of the suspect.” Robinson , 414 U.S. at 235. We have e x plained fur ther that, a fter a

lawful
arr est, “the suspe ct a nd any eff ects in his possession . . . subject to sear ch at the time a nd place of his arre st may

lawfully be sea rche d and seiz ed without a warra nt even though a

substantial period of time ha s elapse d betwee n the arr est
. . . and the taking of the prope rty .” Sm ith , 549 F.3d at 361 (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). The sea rch at issue here , never

theless, was not an ordinary pat-down inc ident to arre st, but a full, unclothed sear ch at the j ail. Such a search comports with the Fourth Amendment only if theNo. 08-5947

US A v . W ar fie ld

- 5 - circ umstances demonstrate that it was “re asonable .” Be ll v . W olf ish , 4 4 1 U
. S
. 5 2 0 , 5 5 9 ( 1 9 7 9 )
. In making such a de termination , we must balanc e “the need f or the pa rticular se arc h ag ainst the inv as i o n o f persona l rig hts that the sear ch enta ils,” and must “consider the scope of the pa

rticular int ru sio n, the man ner in wh ic h it is c on du c te d, the jus tif

ic a tio n f or ini tia tin g it, and

the pla c e in which it is conducted.” Id. Apply ing this ba lancing test, we initially note that the relatively limit ed scope, s t andar d
mann e r a nd se pa rate ro om i n w hic h th e ja il o ff ic e rs we re a

bo ut t o s tr ip-s earc h Warf ie ld w e ig h in favor of finding the sea

rch r easona

ble. The inqui ry h er e, h oweve r, ce nters princ ipally around the
c o n t e x to f an d j u s t i f i c a t i o nf o r t h e s t r i p - s e ar c h
. A s t o t h e c o n t e x t , t h e p e r s o n a l r i g h t s a f f e c t e d b y a str ip- se arc h g re a tly

de pe nd on the loc a tio n— fo r e x amp le, a sc ho ol v e rs us a pr iso n— and

are le a st weig hty in a jail or other de tention fac ility , such as he re. S e e R e y n o ld s v . Ci ty o f A n c h orage , 379 F.3d 358, 362- 64 (6th Cir. 2004)
. This dif fer ence exis ts be cause “[a] dete ntion facility is a unique place fra ug ht with serious security dang ers . . . [i ncluding the s ]m ug g ling of
. . . drug s.” Be ll , 441 U.S. at 559. As to the justification for the se arc h, courts sometimes examine the local p o l i ci es i n the
course of the re asonable ness deter mination, see, e .g. , Dobrowolskyj v. Jefferson Cnty. , 823 F.2d 955, 956, 958 (6th Cir. 1987), and we he re f ind instructive Kentucky ’s jail policies on when strip-se arc hes
are appropr iate: “A prisoner may be strip sea rche d only

on rea sonable suspicion that is based upon the exist ence of objec tive information that may predic t the likelihood of the prese nce of ” drug s. 501 K Y . A D M IN . R EG S . 3:1 20 , § 3( 1) (b ); see also Re ynolds , 379 F.3d at 364 (finding a strip-se arc h
reas o n ab le bec ause of

particula rized suspicion of drug possession, among other thing s). TheNo. 08-5947

US A v . W ar fie ld

Warfield makes much ado of the leng th of his roadside de tection, and the a bsence of 1 testimony reg ardingthe first dog ’s training or the a lerting of a se cond d ru g-d etection dog that the police used later. How ever , these a rg uments are not we l l t aken. First, the ca ses Warfield c ites discussing the propriety

of extending a

traff ic or Te rry

stop throug h use of a drug- detec tion dog are inapposite, bec ause Warf

ield’s arrest j ustified his detention for up to ninety day s, see K

Y . R EV . S TAT . §§ 186.620(2), 186.990( 3), 532.090(2) , let alone the minutes or h o u rs at issue here . Second, testimony about the dog ’s training would be nec essar y only to establish pr ob ab le c au se justify ing W arfield’s ar

rest, see, e .g. , United States v. Torres-Ramos , 5 3 6 F
. 3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 4 ( 6 th Cir. 2008), not—as soug ht here —to support a re asonable suspicion that Warfield possessed contraba nd at the jail where none wa s found in his car or clothing a fter the dog ’s aler t i n g. T h i rd , the offic er’ s testimony as to the use of another dog , without an af firmative state ment that the sec ond dog aler ted a s w e ll, is i na de qu a te to u nd e rm ine the of

fi c e r’ s e xten siv e te sti mony a bo ut t he fi rs t do g ’s a c tio ns . - 6 - Kentucky regulations premise “r easona ble suspicion” on a showing of, in rele vant par t, “[a] criminal his tor y of of fe ns e s in vo lvi ng. . . the po sse ssi on of c on tr a ba nd ,” or “ [i]nst itutio na l be havio r, re lia ble information, or history

that indicates possession . . . of c ont ra b an d , [ or] the refusa l to submi t to a clothed pat down se arc h.” 501 K Y . A D M IN . R EG S . 3:120, § 3(1)(b) (2)- (3). Her e, thre e fa cts justified t he jail offic ers’ rea sonable suspicion that Warfie ld possessed drug s: (1) his prior drugconviction; (2) his r efusa l to submit to a sear ch; and, most im portantly , (3) the re lay e d in fo rm a tio n r e g ard ingWar fi e ld’ s su sp e c te d p os se ssi on of c on tr aband, s pe c if

ic a lly throug h the aler

ting of the drug-de tection dog. These c onsiderations cr eate d rea sonable suspicion 1 that Warfield possessed dr ug s, and thus provided an adequate re ason under Be ll fo r t he ja il o ff ic e rs ’ strip-sear ch of Warf

ield. There fore , even assuming W arf ield did not abandon the ba g g ie of c rac k
coca ine, the thre atene d strip-sear ch of Warf ield was re asonable under the t o t al i t y of the circ umstances a

nd did not violate Warfield’s rig ht to be fre e of unreasona ble s ear ches a

nd seizures
un de r t he F ourt h A me ndme nt.No. 08-5947

US A v . W ar fie ld

- 7 - III . For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of War fi e ld’ s mo tio n to
su pp re ss.