Opinion ID: 4175415
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Warrantless Car Search

Text: Joshua contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress all of the evidence seized the night of his February 2012 arrest (the drugs, the money, and the digital scale). We begin with the background information necessary to explain that night's events, presenting the facts in the light most favorable to the government. See Burgos-Montes, 786 F.3d at 99. - 8 - a) Background As we briefly mentioned before, on February 27, 2012, police acted on a tip they received from CI-1. The informant who provided the information leading to the arrest of Joshua and Shaw and the seizure of illegal contraband claimed to be a regular enough oxycodone buyer that he or she knew when Joshua and Shaw's supply was running low--and when they planned to restock. CI-1 had proved his or her bona fides over time:3  In October 2011, CI-1 told police that Gonsalves associate John Doe 1 had planned an off-Cape resupply run. Police observed John Doe 1 meet with John Doe 2 (whom CI-1 had also previously identified as a Gonsalves associate). Police followed the two men on their drive off the Cape and back, as predicted. CI-1 then confirmed the new supply had been delivered.  In November 2011, CI-1 told police about another offCape trip to buy oxycodone from a supplier; after watching the two men identified by CI-1 drive off together, police pulled them over and seized $69,000.  In February 2012, CI-1 made a controlled buy from Joshua and Shaw. CI-1's hottest tip came on February 27, when CI-1 told police that Joshua and Shaw had put together enough money to buy more pills from an oxycodone supplier police referred to as John 3We also note here that by the time CI-1 appeared on the scene in 2011, the FBI-led task force investigating Willis had already combined resources with the DEA-led task force and Barnstable police. So on top of their newly-cultivated source, the agents and officers investigating Joshua knew the brothers were trafficking oxycodone from evidence gathered during the Willis investigation, including wiretapped conversations and text messages from Willis' phone seized after his May 2011 arrest. - 9 - Doe 4. Both CI-1 and a second CI had previously told police that John Doe 4 was Joshua's primary post-Willis oxycodone source. CI-1 said Joshua and Shaw would leave home around 4:30 that afternoon in Joshua's black Cadillac, drive to the New Bedford area, and return with about 2,000 pills. Sure enough, Barnstable police spotted Joshua, Shaw, and a second woman (who turned out to be Shaw's friend Ariana Tavares) in the black Cadillac heading westbound (towards New Bedford) at 4:50. Police tailed them to a house in Acushnet, a town that shares a border with New Bedford. They watched the trio park next to a white Infiniti, exit the car, and enter the house where the Infiniti was parked. Police knew from pulling over that same white Infiniti one month prior that the car belonged to John Doe 4. When Joshua, Shaw, and Tavares left some two hours later, police tailed them to the highway, clocked Joshua driving sixtyfive miles-per-hour in a fifty-five mile-per-hour zone, and pulled him over. When the officer who conducted the stop reported back to headquarters, he was instructed to ask Joshua for permission to search the car. But if Joshua refused, the officer was instructed to search the car anyway because the police had probable cause to believe the occupants of the vehicle were in possession of oxycodone. Joshua did refuse, so police ordered him, Shaw, and Tavares out of the car. During a frisk of Joshua, police found a $6,253 cash wad in his pocket. It was too dark outside to search - 10 - the car, so police called for a drug-sniffing dog. Overhearing the talk about the arrival of a drug dog, Shaw pulled a bag of pills from her bra and threw them into the woods. Seeing the toss, police recovered the pills, precipitating the arrests of the three occupants. In a post-arrest search, police found another $16,760 in a speaker box in the trunk, a digital scale in the console, and a second cache of pills in Shaw's bra. Joshua subsequently moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search, claiming that the stop and search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because at the time of the stop, police did not have reasonable suspicion to believe Joshua had committed a crime. The district court held a pre-trial hearing on Joshua's motion. Mark Butler, a Barnstable police detective then serving on the DEA's Cape Cod Drug Task Force and investigating the Gonsalves brothers, submitted an affidavit about the Gonsalves investigation and the traffic stop and he also testified at the hearing. Butler was not present at the stop and search, but he explained the state of law enforcement's Gonsalves investigation and his belief that police had probable cause to search Joshua's car at the time based on CI-1's information. After the hearing, the court denied Joshua's motion. The court found that CI-1's tip gave police reasonable suspicion that Joshua was involved in drug trafficking, and that reasonable suspicion justified the stop, Joshua's frisk, and detaining the car and its - 11 - occupants until the drug-sniffing dog could arrive. United States v. Gonsalves, 34 F. Supp. 3d 196, 200-01 (D. Mass. 2014). When police saw Shaw discard the drugs, officers had probable cause to arrest Joshua, Shaw, and Tavares. Id. at 201. Police were entitled to search the Cadillac incident to those arrests. Id. On appeal, Joshua argues that the district court got it wrong. His theory goes like this: police had no right to ask him to get out of the car to begin with (the officer told Joshua he was stopped for speeding) or to detain him at the scene to wait for a drug-sniffing dog, and if they hadn't done these things Shaw never would have tossed the pills, and if she hadn't tossed the pills police wouldn't have had cause to search the car or arrest them. The government argues that the police had probable cause based on CI-1's tip to stop the car and search its occupants, so everything that followed was fair game. But even if not, the government argues that the district court was right to find that police had reasonable suspicion to stop the car, and that suspicion ripened into probable cause to arrest everyone and search the car when Shaw pitched the drugs. b) Probable Cause Analysis We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress de novo, we review subsidiary findings of facts for clear error, and we must uphold a denial of a suppression motion if any reasonable view of the record supports it. United States v. - 12 - Polanco, 634 F.3d 39, 41-42 (1st Cir. 2011). Under this rubric we can likewise affirm a denial on any basis apparent in the record. United States v. Sanchez, 612 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2010). We agree with the government that the officers had probable cause to stop Joshua and search the car, and so we affirm the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires police to obtain a warrant before conducting a search, but under the socalled automobile exception, all the police need is probable cause to search the vehicle. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991); accord United States v. Lopez, 380 F.3d 538, 543 (1st Cir. 2004). [P]robable cause only 'exists when the totality of the circumstances suggests that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in [the vehicle].' United States v. Ramírez-Rivera, 800 F.3d 1, 27 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Gifford, 727 F.3d 92, 98 (1st Cir. 2013)), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 908 (2016), and cert. denied sub nom. Laureano-Salgado v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 917, (2016). The government bears the burden of proving the lawfulness of the search. Lopez, 380 F.3d at 543. Where, as here, the police act on information from a confidential informant, law enforcement must provide some information from which a court can credit the informant's credibility. United States v. White, 804 F.3d 132, 136 (1st Cir. - 13 - 2015) (quoting Ramírez-Rivera, 800 F.3d at 27-28), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1229 (2016). In assessing an informant's credibility, we consider factors such as (1) the probable veracity and basis of knowledge of the informant; (2) whether an informant's statements reflect first-hand knowledge; (3) whether some or all of the informant's factual statements were corroborated wherever reasonable and practicable; and (4) whether a law enforcement officer assessed, from his professional standpoint, experience, and expertise, the probable significance of the informant's information. Id. at 137. Applying those factors, CI-1 had a track record of supplying reliable information to police--as we noted earlier, three times before the February 2012 search CI-1 had proven reliable. Accordingly, when CI-1 tipped police off to Joshua and Shaw's planned trip to the New Bedford area about three weeks later, this track record gave police reason to believe CI-1's newest tip was probably reliable, too. See United States v. Tiem Trinh, 665 F.3d 1, 10-11 (1st Cir. 2011); Ramírez-Rivera, 800 F.3d at 28 (police history with informant can establish credibility).4 4 Joshua suggests that the three-week time period that passed after CI-1's last confirmed tip made the tip at issue here somehow unreliable, or otherwise tarnished CI-1's record of reliability. But he does not explain why that is so--and in light of the steps we explain below that police took to confirm the tip before acting on it, we do not think it is. - 14 - Further, notwithstanding Joshua's unsubstantiated claim to the contrary, the record shows that CI-1 had first-hand knowledge of Joshua and Shaw's operation that bolstered CI-1's credibility. Specifically, CI-1 admitted to buying oxycodone from Joshua and Shaw many times, so the CI knew when their supply was low and when they needed to restock. See White, 804 F.3d at 137 (past drug purchases from tip subject are first-hand knowledge of drug operations that bolster credibility). Moreover, the tip included details of Joshua and Shaw's future activities ordinarily not easily predicted, and almost all of these details were corroborated by police surveillance before Joshua's car was stopped. Ramírez-Rivera, 800 F.3d at 29 (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 332 (1990)). Police spotted Joshua's Cadillac (the vehicle identified by CI-1) on the highway heading out of town at 4:50 pm (shortly after CI-1 said Joshua and Shaw planned to leave) and followed it to a house in Acushnet (CI-1 said they would be driving to the New Bedford area, and Acushnet abuts New Bedford). The Cadillac parked next to a white Infiniti that belonged to John Doe 4 (the dealer identified by CI-1). After the Cadillac parked, Joshua and Shaw got out of the car (CI-1 said the two of them were making the trip). Finally, police assessed and understood the significance of CI-1's information before making the stop. Police had independent knowledge of the brothers' prior drug-trafficking - 15 - activity through the Willis investigation--including information from two Willis couriers caught bringing pills from Florida up to Massachusetts for the Gonsalves brothers. See United States v. Taylor, 985 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir. 1993) (officer's knowledge of the target's prior criminal activity or record . . . is material to the probable cause determination). Furthermore, sources other than CI-1 developed during and after the Willis investigation told police that Joshua and Stanley were continuing to sell oxycodone sourced from other suppliers after Willis' arrest. If more were needed, the task force officer leading the Gonsalves investigation (and who told the officer who stopped Joshua that police already had probable cause) had specialized training and experience in drug investigations. See id. (officer's experience and pertinent expertise in drug-crime investigations bolstered probable cause finding). In short, law enforcement assessed CI-1's tip in the context of the overall Willis and Gonsalves investigations and in light of their expertise. But hold on. Before we find probable cause, Joshua says, we must consider indicia of an informant's unreliability, too-- and Joshua thinks that CI-1's tip was so inaccurate that it could not support a finding of probable cause. See United States v. Vigeant, 176 F.3d 565, 573 n.9 (1st Cir. 1999). Specifically, Joshua points out that (1) he drove to Acushnet, but CI-1 said he was headed to New Bedford; (2) CI-1 didn't mention that Shaw's - 16 - friend would be with Joshua and Shaw; and (3) police only found 280 pills, not the promised 2,000. But none of these facts undermine our belief that police had probable cause to stop and search the car that night. First, although the task force officer's affidavit said Joshua was going to New Bedford, the officer testified at the suppression hearing that the CI said Joshua was going to the New Bedford area, and the district court's findings of fact listed the destination as the New Bedford area. Gonsalves, 34 F. Supp. 3d at 199. Joshua does not challenge that finding of fact as clearly erroneous on appeal, so we adopt it here. See Polanco, 634 F.3d at 41-42. Acushnet and New Bedford are adjoining towns, so CI-1's claim that Joshua was heading to the New Bedford area was accurate. The same goes for his second point--that CI-1 didn't tell police that Tavares would be along for the ride--because the omission of the fact does not make CI-1's tip inaccurate as to the presence of Joshua and Shaw. But even if it did, we assess probable cause under the totality of the circumstances, White, 804 F.3d at 136, and given the other factors we described above, this point does little to undermine the government's probable-cause argument or our probable-cause finding. Joshua's third argument--that Shaw was only carrying a fraction of the drugs that CI-1 predicted--doesn't help his case, either. We measure probable cause at the time the officers effectuate the search. See Lopez, 380 F.3d at 543. That means - 17 - the mid-search discovery of a smaller-than-anticipated pill stash does not change whether the officers had probable cause to begin with. All things considered, we find the police had probable cause to stop Joshua and search his car. We affirm the district court's order denying Joshua's motion to suppress the evidence found during the search.5