Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Master Michael RAMSEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-28
Citations: 376 F. App'x 968
Docket Number: No. 09-13876
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Master Michael RAMSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 968–969

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Master Michael RAMSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-13876
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 28, 2010.
T.M. Flournoy, Jr., Columbus, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Michelle Schieber, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Master Michael Ramsey appeals his convictions for felony murder, 18 U.S.C. § 1111, kidnapping, id. § 1201, murder with a firearm during a crime of -violence, id. § § 924(c)(1), (j), robbery, id. § 2111, theft of a motor vehicle, id. § 2119, and conspiracy to commit robbery, id. § 2111, 371. Ramsey argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle. We affirm.
Ramsey argues that the search of his vehicle was invalid under state law and rendered the search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, but this argument fails. The failure of law enforcement officers to comply with the demands of state law regarding the search and seizure of property does not affect the admissibility of evidence in federal court. United States v. Gilbert, 942 F.2d 1537, 1541 (11th Cir.1991). Evidence is admissible so long as it was not "obtained by state officers during a search which, if conducted by federal officers, would have violated the defendant's immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment," Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 223-24, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 1447, 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 (1960), and Ramsey does not argue that the search or seizure otherwise violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court did not err by admitting at trial the evidence seized from Ramsey's vehicle.
Ramsey's convictions are AFFIRMED.