Opinion ID: 620949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the district court erred in denying Ochoa's motion to suppress.

Text: Ochoa next argues that the district court erred by denying his Motion to Suppress the information retrieved from his cell phone and the statements he made both before and after his arrest. It is undisputed that the officers here had neither an arrest warrant nor a search warrant. When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review factual findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 440 (5th Cir.2010). Six witnesses, including Ochoa's co-defendant, Guerra, testified for the government at the hearing on the motion to suppress. Ochoa did not testify or call any witnesses. The district court did not make any factual findings or give the legal basis for its ruling, saying only that it agree[d] with the government's position.
First, despite the district court's conclusion to the contrary, Ochoa argues that the agents did not have probable cause to arrest him. A warrantless arrest is justified if the arresting officers had probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a felony. United States v. Watson, 273 F.3d 599, 602 (5th Cir.2001). Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the totality of the facts and circumstances within a police officer's knowledge at the moment of arrest are sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense. Id. (quoting United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir.1995)). The officer making the arrest need not have direct knowledge of all of the facts establishing probable cause, as long as he has communicated with the officer who does. United States v. Ibarra, 493 F.3d 526, 531 (5th Cir.2007). Ochoa argues that the agents arrested him based on three facts: (1) Guerra was driving from Eagle Pass to Waco to deliver a load of cocaine, (2) Guerra received telephone instructions that an unknown party would meet him at the designated location, and (3) Ochoa drove through the parking lot and Guerra gave the bust signal. He misconstrues the facts, however. As detailed above, Ochoa did not simply drive through the parking lot; the agents watched Ochoa drive directly to Guerra's car and park his car behind it. Moreover, Guerra's contact told him that someone would be arriving to meet him in five minutes, and Ochoa arrived seven minutes later. The agents had arranged for Guerra to give the bust signal once the contact identified himself by his code name, and the agents saw him give it after talking to Ochoa briefly. In addition, Ochoa got back into his car to drive out of the parking lot immediately after talking to Guerra. The agents testified that they believed they had probable cause to arrest Ochoa. For these reasons, we conclude that officers had probable cause to arrest Ochoa because the totality of the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge at the moment of arrest was sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that he had committed an offense. Watson, 273 F.3d at 602 (quoting Wadley, 59 F.3d at 512).
Second, Ochoa challenges the search of his cell phone. The government argues in response that the search was legal and that, even if it was not, the district court properly denied the motion to suppress because the cell phone would have been inevitably discovered when officers later conducted a routine inventory search of the vehicle. The government made the same arguments at the hearing on the motion to suppress before the district court, and the district court denied the motion noting simply that it agree[d] with the government's position. We conclude that we need not determine whether the search itself was proper because, in any event, the cell phone would have inevitably been discovered pursuant to law enforcement's routine inventory search of the vehicle. The inevitable discovery doctrine applies if the Government demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) there is a reasonable probability that the contested evidence would have been discovered by lawful means in the absence of police misconduct, and (2) the Government was actively pursuing a substantial alternate line of investigation at the time of the constitutional violation. See United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562, 579 (5th Cir.2008). The government argues that Ochoa's cell phone would have been discovered during the lawful inventory of his vehicle. [A]n inventory search of a seized vehicle is reasonable and not violative of the Fourth Amendment if it is conducted pursuant to standardized regulations and procedures that are consistent with (1) protecting the property of the vehicle's owner, (2) protecting the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property, and (3) protecting the police from danger. Id. (quoting United States v. Hope, 102 F.3d 114, 116 (5th Cir.1996)). We have recognized that evidence initially seized improperly should not be suppressed if it would have been discovered pursuant normal police practices. United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1108 (5th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Castro, 166 F.3d 728, 734 (5th Cir.1999). Agent Robertson testified that DEA has standard operating procedures calling for an inventory of a vehicle to protect the agency from claims of lost or stolen property. Indeed, pursuant to those procedures, agents began taking an inventory of Ochoa's car shortly after the cell phone was seized. Further, there was at least a reasonable probability that the agents would have uncovered the cell phone, which had been ringing as one of the agents drove Ochoa's car to the agency, during the inventory. Accordingly, we hold that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress based on the inevitable discovery rule.