Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon O. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-28
Citations: 249 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 06-31325
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon O. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon O. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-31325
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 28, 2007.
Michael J Jefferson, U.S. Attorney’s Office Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before REAYLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Having entered a conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and marihuana, carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, and possession of a firearm by a felon, Brandon Smith appeals the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized during an inventory search of his vehicle. Smith's vehicle was impounded and inventoried when he was unable to provide proof of insurance following a valid traffic stop. We see no error in the district court's implicit finding that the vehicle inventory occurred before Smith's arrest and the discovery of contraband on his person. See United States v. Castene-da, 951 F.2d 44, 48 (5th Cir.1992). We agree with the district court that the im-poundment of Smith's vehicle was proper under Louisiana law and that the procedure used to inventory the vehicle was acceptable. See Fields v. State, 714 So.2d 1244, 1250-56 (La.1998); United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 380 (5th Cir.1999). We likewise agree that the relevant issue is the good-faith nature of the search rather than the exactness with which non-incriminating items were documented. See United States v. Outlaw, 319 F.3d 701, 704 (5th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.