# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 12 47

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Bro de ric k P at ric k

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 11 , 20 14
Fil ed : J an ua ry

23 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Bas ed in it ia ll y on th e m is ta ke n be li ef th at Bro de ric k Pat ric k was th e su sp ect

in th ei r cas e wit h th e sa m e fir st na m e, po li ce st op pe d Pat ri c k i n hi s car an d, up on

se arch in g th e car, fo un d se ve ral pa c k a ge s of m ari juan a an d fak e co cai ne in hi s

po ss es si on

. Hav in g si nc e be en co nv ic te d of po ss es s i n g marijua na wit h in te nt todi st rib ut e, se e 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(D), Pat ric k ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s 1

or de r de nyin g hi s m ot io n to su pp res s al l ev id en ce se iz ed du rin g th e st op , co nt en di ng

la w enf or cem en t u nr eas on ab ly m is to ok hi s i de nt it y in be li ev in g hi m to be th e fel on

th ey were se ek in g. Bec au se we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e of fic ers ’ act io ns
were wel l wi th in co ns ti tu ti on al li m it s, we af fir m

. 2

I. BACKGRO UND

In 20 12

, po li ce in Lit tl e R oc k, Ark an sa s, ha d DNA ev id en ce su gg es ti ng

Bro dr ic k Bare fie ld un la wfu ll y po ss es se d a fir earm an d en ga ge d in a gu nf ig ht

. W he n

th e Bu reau of Alco ho l, Fi rear m s, Tob acco an d Exp lo si ve s “ ad op te d” Bare fie ld ’s cas e

fro m th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t, Sp eci al Age nt Dav id Oli ve r ob ta in ed a
fed eral cri m in al co m

pl ai nt an d arre st w a r r a nt fo r Bare fie ld an d at te m pt ed to lo cat e

hi m

. Bare fie ld ’s cas e fil e co nt ai ne d hi s d r i ve r’s li cen se ph ot o, sh owi ng Bare fie ld

wit h b rai de d h ai r.

Una bl e to lo cat e Bar efi el d at hi s la st kn own ad dr es s, Ag en t Ol iv er co nt act ed

se ve ral in fo rm an ts on Ju ly 3, 20 12

, se ek in g in fo rm at io n on Bare fie ld

. Tha t sa m e da y , Age nt Oli ve r rece iv ed a cal l fro m a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t w h o pu rp or te d to kn ow

Bare fie ld ’s whe reab ou ts

. At Age nt Oli ve r’s req ue st

, th e in fo rm an t arra ng ed a

m eet in g th at ev en in g in a McDo na ld ’s pa rk in g lo t wit h th e p e r s o n h e cl ai m ed was

Bare fie ld

. The in fo rm an t rep or te d Bare fie ld wou ld arri ve in a go ld Old sm ob il e wit h

a de nt ed pa ss en ge r-s id e do or an d wou ld ha ve a pl as ti c wate r bo tt le co nt ai ni ng dr ug s.

A g en t Oli ve r an d Sp eci al Age nt W arre n Newm an es ta bl is he d su rv ei ll an ce

acro ss th e st reet fro m th e McDo na ld ’s lo t— ab ou t 10 0 y ard s fro m th e m eet in g pl ace
—wh il e North L itt le Ro ck Po lic e O ff ic er Ch ris to ph er Gan n po si ti on ed hi m se lf ne arb y

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Un i t e d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

W e are clo ak ed wit h a pp el la te juri sd ic ti on by 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

. 2

-2

-in a m ark ed po li ce car. At th e ap po in te d ti m e, a go ld -b ro wn B u i c k a r r i v ed an d

pa rk e d ne ar th e in fo rm an t. The car’s dr iv er ex it ed th e car an d co nv ers ed wit h th e

in fo rm an t fo r se ve ral m in ut es , th en go t back in to hi s car and le ft. As the car t ur ne d

on to th e st reet

, it s pa ss en ge r si de was e x p o s e d rev eal in g a de nt ed do or

. Neit he r Age nt Oli ve r no r Age nt Newm an was ab le po si t i v el y to id en ti fy th e dr iv er as

Bare fie ld

.

Task ed wit h ap pr eh en di ng th e dr iv er, Offi cer Gan n an d an ot he r Nor t h Lit tl e

Ro ck of fic er co nd uc te d a tra ffi c st op

. At th e ti m e, Offi cer Gan n ha d no t se en a ph ot o

of Bare fie ld

, bu t was to ld th e dr iv er wou ld be an Afri can -Am eri can m al e wit h a

warra nt ou t fo r hi s arre st

, wou ld be dr iv in g a go ld -b ro wn Old sm ob il e wit h a da m ag ed

pa ss en ge r-s id e do or , an d was li k e l y a r m ed

. The se two of fic ers ap pr oa ch ed th e car
wit h th ei r gu ns dr awn , ob se rv in g a fem al e i n th e fro nt se at an d a ch il d in th e ba ck

se at

. Offi ce r G a n n r em ov ed th e dr iv er (an Afri can -Am eri can m al e), pl aced hi m in

ha nd cu ffs

, pa tt ed hi m do wn, an d pl aced hi m in Offi cer Ga nn ’s ve hi cl e. As he

rem ov ed th e dr iv er, Offi cer Gan n no ti ced a cl ear Aqu afi na wate r bo tt le in th e car ’s

cen te r co ns ol e whi ch ap pe ared to ha ve a “ le afy su bs ta nc e fl oa ti ng in it .”

At so m e po in t du rin g th e st op , Age nt s Oli ve r an d Newm an arri ve d in se pa rat e

ve hi cl es , pa rk ed th ei r cars be hi nd Offi cer Gan n’s car, an d st oo d ba ck fro m th e sc en e
ab ou t a “ car le ng th ” away. Onc e t h e dr iv er was se cu re in Offi cer Gan n’s ve hi cl e, Age nt Newm an “ walk [ed ] st rai gh t to th e” su sp ect ’s car to be gi n se arch in g fo r dr ug s.

Age nt Newm an al so ob se rv ed th e cl ear Aqu afi na wate r bo tt le i n t h e c e nt er

co ns ol e, ap pa ren tl y co nt a in in g bo th whi te an d gr een su bs ta nc es

. Upo n fu rth er

in sp ect io n, Age nt Newm an fo un d th e to p of th e bo tt le co u l d b e rem ov ed to acce ss

pa ck ag es of m ari

juan a an d fak e co cai ne in si de

. Age nt Newm an al so fo un d a di gi ta l

sc al e in th e g lo ve bo x.

-3

-Mea nwh il e, Offi cer Gan n qu es ti on ed th e dr iv er. The d r i v e r c la im ed to ha ve

no id en ti fic at io n on hi m bu t la te r st at ed he was And re Pat ric k, bo rn on Sep te m be r 19

, 19 74

. A se arch fo r th is na m e re v e al ed no reco rd in th e la w en fo rcem en t da ta ba se

. Age nt Oli ve r be cam e su sp ic io us be cau se he ha d no ti ced wha t he th ou gh t were pr is on

ta tt oo s on th e dr iv er’s arm s, whi ch wou ld be in co ns is te nt wit h th e cl ean cri m in al

reco rd pr od uc ed by a s earc h o f th e d riv er’s rep or te d na m e. Age nt Oli ve r as ke d th e
dr iv er hi s na m e an d whe th er he ha d ev er be en to pr is on . Th e d riv er ag ai n g av e th e

na m e “ And re Pat ric k” an d sa id he ha d ne ve r b e e n to pr is on

. The of fic ers th en
br ou gh t th e dr iv er to th e de te ct iv e of fic e of th e Nor th Lit tl e Ro ck po li ce st at io n whe re

on e of th e d et ect iv es id en ti fie d t he dri ve r as Bro de ric k Patr ic k, a m an who al so ha d

an ou ts ta nd in g war ran t fo r arre st . “ And re” i s t he na m e o f Pat ric k’s b ro th er.

Af te r be ing charg ed wit h po ss es si ng m ari juan a wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, Pat ric k

m ov ed to su pp r e s s t h e ev id en ce se iz ed du rin g th e st op , m ai nt ai ni ng “ th e st op an d

se arch of th e ve hi cl e was a vi ol at io n o f h i s c o ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Afte r an

ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n , d e t e rm in in g th e of fic ers

were jus ti fie d in st op pi ng P a t r i c k a n d se arch in g th e car. Afte r a tri al

, th e jury

ret ur ne d a gu il ty ve rd ic t, an d Pat ric k no w ap pe al s th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n to

su pp res s.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

“ On rev ie w of a m o t io n to su pp res s, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l

fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d rev ie w i ts le ga l co nc lu si on s d e no vo .” Uni te d St at es v.
Si gi ll it o, 7 59 F.3d 91 3, 9 23 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . “ A di st ric t co ur t’s

cred ib il it y fin di ng s are well -n ig h un rev ie wab le

, so lo n g a s t h e fin di ng s are no t

i nt ern al ly in co ns is te nt or ba se d on te st im on y th at is in co he ren t, im pl au si bl e, o r

co nt rad ic te d b y

ob jecti ve ev id en ce.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

-4

-A. Sto p

“ The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s ‘unr eas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es ’ by th e

Gov ern m en t, an d it s pr ot ect io ns e x t e n d t o br ie f in ve st ig at or y st op s of pe rs on s or

ve hi cl es th at fal l sh or t of tra di ti on al arre st .” Uni te d St at es v. Arvi zu , 53 4 U.S. 26 6,

27 3 (2 00 2) (q uo ti ng U.S. Co ns t. am en d IV). “ [T]he Fo ur th Am en dm en t is sa ti sf ie d

if th e of fic er’s act io n is su pp or te d by r e a s o n a bl e su sp ic io n to be li ev e th at cri m in al

act iv it y ‘m ay be afo ot .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. So ko lo w, 49 0 U.S. 1, 7
(1 98 9) ). Thi s en ta il s an ex am in at io n of th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces ’ of each

cas e to se e whe th er th e de ta in in g of fic er ha s a ‘part ic ul ari zed an d ob jecti ve ba si s’ fo r

su sp ect in g le ga l wro ng do in g.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. C o r te z, 44 9 U.S. 41 1,

41 7 (1 98 1) ). “ Alt ho ug h an of fic er’s rel ia nc e on a m ere ‘hun ch ’ is in s u f f i c i e n t to jus ti fy a st op , th e li ke li ho od of cri m in al act iv it y ne ed no t ris e to th e le ve l req ui red fo r

pr ob ab le cau se .” I d

. a t 27 4 (q uo ti ng Terry v. Ohi o, 39 2 U.S. 1, 27 (1 96 8) ).

S u s pi ci on do es ris e to th e le ve l of pr ob ab le cau se “ ‘w he n th e to ta li t y o f t h e
ci rcu m st an ces at th e ti m e of th e arre st are su ffi c i e n t t o l e a d a reas on ab le pe rs on to

be li ev e th at th e de fen da nt ha s co m m it te d or is co m

m it ti ng an of

fen se .’ ” Pet ers on v. Kop p, 75 4 F.3 d 59 4

, 5 9 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Ulri ch v. Po pe Cn ty., 71 5 F.3 d

10 54 , 10 59 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) ).

In Uni te d St at es v. Bo bo

, 99 4 F.2 d 52 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ), we co nf ro nt ed a si m il ar
si tu at io n. P o l ic e were se arch in g fo r a Mr. Bo bo wit h th e al ia s “ Han ky,” who was

su sp ect ed of ho m ic id e. Id

. at 52 5. Hav in g na rro wed th ei r se arch to Ri ch ard Bo bo

an d Mar vi n Bo bo (b ro th ers ), po li c e su sp ect ed Mar vi n. See id

. at 52 5- 26

. W it h a

“ pi ck up or de r” fo r Mar vi n, on e of fic er be ga n se arch in g fo r a la rg e gr een Cad il la c in

“ be at -u p con di ti on ,” whi ch ey ewit ne ss te st im on y ti ed to Mar vi n. Id

. at 52 6. W hi le

on pa tro l, th e of

fic er hap pe ne d up on “ a gr een Cad il la c in po or co nd it io n” dr iv en by

a m an who m he “ th ou gh t

. . . cl os el y res em bl ed th e m

ug sh o t o f M a r v i n

. ” Id

. Offi cers pu ll ed ov er th e Cad il la c (aft er a br ie f ch as e), not ic in g th e dr iv er “ du ck [] to

hi s rig ht a n d

. . . r e ach un de r th e dr iv er’s se at .” Id

. Offi cers arre st ed th e m an an d

fo un d a fir earm un de r hi s se at

, bu t th ey so on real iz ed th e dr iv er was Mar vi n’s br ot he r

-5

-Ri ch ard

, who al so ha pp en ed to be a fel on

. See i d

. Alt ho ug h Ri ch ard arg ue d th e

arre st ba se d on th e m is ta ke n id en ti ty was un la wfu l, we “ no te [d ] th at if th e po li ce ha d

pr ob ab le cau se to arre st Mar vi n, an d th ey reas on ab ly b el ie ve d th at th e m an dr iv in g

th e gr een Cad il la c was Mar vi n, th en Ri ch ard ’s arre st was a va li d arre st .” Id

. at 52 7.

Bec au se (1) th e of

fic ers ha d go od reas on to su sp ect Marv in , (2) Ric ha rd res em bl ed

Mar vi n, an d (3 ) Ri ch ard was d riv in g a car t ie d t o M arv in , we con cl ud ed po li ce h ad

pr ob ab le cau se to arre st Ric ha rd . See i d.

As wit h th e Bo b o br ot he rs , th e of fic ers he re ha d pr ob ab le cau se to su sp ect

Bare fie ld of a c rime, an d th ey reas on ab ly b el ie ve d th e m an dr iv in g th e go ld -b ro wn

Bu ic k was Bare fie ld

. One of Age nt Oli ve r’s kn own in fo rm an ts m is ta ke nl y ha d

id en ti fie d th e dr iv er as Bare fie ld

. Alt ho ug h we do no t kn ow th e in fo rm an t’s pa st

rel ia bi li ty, he was kn own to Age nt Oli ve r an d was “ en li st ed

. . . to be a co nf id en ti al

in fo rm an t, an d th eref

or e, co ul d be he ld acco un ta bl e

. . . fo r fal se in fo rm at io n.”

Uni t ed St at es v. Ken t, 53 1 F.3 d 64 2, 64 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The in fo rm an t’s

wil li ng ne ss to arra ng e a m eet in g an d hi s accu rat e pr ed ic ti on of ev en ts al so pr ov id ed

st ro ng su pp or t t o t he ve raci ty of th e in fo rm an t’s in fo rm at io n. See Uni te d St at es v.

W in ars ke

, 71 5 F.3 d 10 63

, 10 67 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ An in fo rm an t m ay

. . . pr ov e hi m se lf

to be a rel ia bl e so ur ce fo r la w en fo rcem en t by pr ov id in g pr ed ic ti ve in fo rm at io n ab ou t

a m eet in g ti m e or pl ace.” ); Uni te d St at es v. Man es , 60 3 F.3 d 45 1, 45 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(rea so ni ng th e rel ia bi li ty o f a n in fo rm an t’s in fo rm at io n “ is bo ls te red if th e ti p is

co rro bo rat ed no t on ly by m at ch in g an id en ti ty or de sc rip ti on , bu t al so by accu rat el y
de sc rib in g a su sp ect ’s fu tu re be ha vi or ”). In th is cas e, t h e t i me an d lo cat io n of th e

m eet in g pl ace, th e co lo r of th e car, t he de nt in it s pas se ng er-s id e do or , an d eve n th e

-6

-car’s m ak e al l po in t to th e in fo rm an t’s accu racy an d tru th fu ln es s wit h reg ard to th e 3

dr iv er’s i de nt it y

.

Eve n di sr eg ard in g th e m is ta ke n id en ti ty, th e in fo rm a n t t ol d th e of fic ers th at

who ev er th e dr iv er was , he wou ld ha ve dr ug s on hi m

. Thi s in fo rm at io n, co m bi ne d

wit h th e in fo rm an t’s co rro bo rat ed cred ib i l i t y , al so jus ti fie d a reas on ab le be li ef th e
dr iv er h ad co m

m it te d a cri m e.

At th e ti m e Offi cer Gan n m ad e th e st op , reas on ab le su sp i c i o n an d ev en

pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d to be li ev e th e dr iv er ha d co m m it te d a cri m e. Thi s is m or e th an

en ou gh to jus ti fy a st op

. S e e A l a b a ma v. W hi te

, 49 6 U.S. 32 5, 33 0 (1 99 0)
(“ Rea so na bl e su sp ic io n i s a l es s d em an di ng st an da rd th an pro ba bl e cau se .”).

B. Sea rch

Pat ric k rai se s two arg um en ts ch al le ng in g th e se arch of hi s car. Pat ric k fir st

arg ue s “ [t]he re was no pr ob ab le cau se ” to arre st hi m so th e se arch can no t be jus ti fie d

as a se arch in ci de nt to hi s arres t. As we co nc lu de d, t he of fic ers ha d pro ba bl e cau se
be fo re th ey st op pe d Pat ric k. In ad di ti on , th e ev en ts du rin g th e st op fu rth er va li da te d

th e in fo rm an t’s st or y an d co nf irmed th e of

fi c e rs ’ reas on ab le su sp ic io ns

. Age nt

Newm an an d Office r Gan n bo th co ul d see wha t app eare d to be co nt rab an d dru gs in

a p la st ic bo tt le in th e car ’s cen te r co ns ol e, jus t as th e in fo rm an t p red ic te d.

As th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d, “ Bu ic ks an d Old sm ob il es lo ok ve ry si m il ar.

. . . 3

The y are Gen eral Mo to rs cars , whe th er it ’s go ld or br own

. I’ve ha d bo th .” See, e.g ., Crei gh to n v. And ers on , 9 22 F.2 d 44 3, 4 4 8 ( 8 t h C i r. 19 90 ) (“ The de sc rip ti on of th e
ge ta way car (m aro on or bu rg un dy ov er si lv er, po ss ib ly a Bu ic k) co rres po nd ed cl os el y

en ou gh wit h th e de sc rip ti on of th e Crei gh to ns ’ car (red or bu rg un dy Old sm ob il e) to

crea te a st ro ng su sp ic io n t ha t t he y m ig ht be th e sa m e car .”).

-7

-Pat ric k res is ts th is co nc lu si on , co nt en di ng th e of fic ers sh ou ld ha ve do ne m or e

to ve rif y he was Bare fie ld

. Pat ric k se em s to th in k th at be cau se he id en ti fie d hi m se lf

as “ And re Pat ric k” —a na m e th at sh owe d no warra nt s an d no c r im in al reco rd —t he

o f f i c e r s co ul d no t reas on ab ly b el ie ve he ha d co m m it te d a cri m e. Pat ric k’s fix at i o n

on th e id en ti ty is su e bl in ds hi m to th e fact th at at th e sa m e t i me, t h e o f f i cers ha d

cau gh t hi m w i t h co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es

. W he n arre st ed

, Pat ric k’s id en ti ty was

irr el ev an t— th e of

fic ers reas on ab ly su sp ect ed t hi s m an ha d co nt rab an d reg ard le ss
whe th er h e was th e m an th ey ha d t ho ug ht he was.

Eve n if Pat ric k’s id en ti ty were rel ev an t, th e of fic ers ha d su ffi ci en t in fo rm at io n

reas on ab ly to m is ta ke Pat ric k fo r Bare fie ld

. W e do no t req ui re ab so lu te cert ai nt y of

id en ti ty be fo re an arre s t can be m ad e, be cau se “ th ere can al way s be m or e

in ve st ig at io n to ve rif

y id en ti ty.” Hil l v. Sco tt

, 34 9 F.3 d 10 68

, 10 74 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ).

In ad di ti on to th e in fo rm an t’s as su ran ces , t he off ic ers als o e xp ect ed Bare fie ld to be

an Afri can -Am eri can m al e an d su sp ect ed Pat ric k was lying ab ou t hi s na m e an d pr is on

reco r d (wh il e sp or ti ng su sp ect ed pr is on ta tt oo s)

. W ha t is m or e, Pat ric k ha d no
id en ti fic at io n to ve rif

y hi s cl ai m ed na m e. See, e.g ., Hil l v. Cal ifo rn ia

, 40 1 U.S. 79 7,

79 9, 80 5 (1 97 1) (fi nd in g of fic ers ’ id en ti ty m is ta ke to be reas on ab le de sp it e th e

arre st ed m an pr od uc in g an id en ti fic at io n ve rif y in g hi s cl ai m ed id en ti ty). Fu ll y aware

th at “ al ia se s an d fal se id en ti fic at io ns are no t un co m m on ,” id

. at 80 3, an d th at ev en if

ge nu in e, Bare fie ld ’s dr iv er’s li cen se ph ot os co ul d di ffer gr eat ly fro m hi s ap pe aran ce

in pe rs on (es pe ci al ly if hi s br ai de d ha irs tyle ha d be en a l t e r e d s in ce th e ti m e of th e ph ot o)

, th e of

fic ers un de r th e c i r c u m st an ces were no t un reas on ab le in su sp ect in g

Pat ric k p ro ba bl y

was B aref

ie ld

.

Seco nd , Pat ric k m ai nt ai ns th e se arch of hi s car “ was il le ga l u nd er Ari zo na v.

Gan t,” 55 6 U.S. 33 2 (2 00 9)

. Abs en t a warra nt or so m e ot he r ex cep ti on to th e warra nt

requ ire m en t, Gan t ho ld s “ [p ]oli ce m ay se arch a ve hi cl e in ci de nt to a rece nt oc cu pa nt’ s

arre st on ly i f th e arre st ee is wit hi n reac hi ng di st an ce of th e p as se ng er co m pa rtment

at th e ti m e of th e se arch or it is reas on ab le to be li ev e th e v eh ic le co nt ai ns ev id en ce

-8

-of th e of

fen se of arre st .” Gan t, 55 6 U.S. at 35 1. Wi th ou t ex pl an at io n or an al y si s,

P at ric k si m

pl y co nt en ds

, “ Und er Gan t, th e se arch of [Pat ric k’s] ve hi cl e was i n
vi ol at io n of [Pat ric k’s] co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Und er th e ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d, th e

of fic ers co ul d be ne arl y cert ai n of fin di n g e v id en ce of dr ug po ss es si on —t he cl ear

wate r bo tt le co nt ai ni ng what ap pe ared to be dr ug s was res ti ng in pl ai n s ig ht , wher e

th e in fo rm an t sa id dr ug s wou ld b e. Eve n as su m in g no ot he r warra nt ex cep ti on is

av ai la bl e, Gan t p erm it te d t hi s s earc h a s o ne in ci de nt to Pat ric k’s l awfu l ar res t.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e reas on s pr ov id ed

, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Pat ric k’s

m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-