Opinion ID: 181203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the District Court Wrongly Denied Johnson's Suppression Motion.

Text: `When reviewing decisions on motions to suppress, this Court will uphold the factual findings of the district court unless clearly erroneous, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.' United States v. West, 520 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372, 1376 (6th Cir.1996)). Evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to the district court's conclusion. United States v. Gooch, 499 F.3d 596, 600 (6th Cir.2007) (citing United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 973 (6th Cir.1998)). We have held that Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), `permits a police officer briefly to detain a person or property for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that criminal activity has occurred or is about to occur.' United States v. Davis, 514 F.3d 596, 607-08 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Davis, 430 F.3d 345, 354 (6th Cir.2005)). This reasonable suspicion must be judged by courts based on the `totality of the circumstances' of each case. United States v. Paulette, 457 F.3d 601, 606 (6th Cir.2006) (quoting United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002)). Officers may `draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them.' Id. (quoting Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273, 122 S.Ct. 744). Furthermore, a police officer may have reasonable suspicion based upon information from other officers. United States v. Barnes, 910 F.2d 1342, 1345 (6th Cir.1990) (holding that an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had reasonable suspicion to make a valid Terry stop of the defendant because other agents and police had provided him information about the defendant's criminal activity). In Paulette, we held that a search was supported by reasonable suspicion when police had knowledge of drug crimes and observed the defendant in a hand-to-hand transaction with a man in an area known for drug activity, and the defendant attempted to evade police. Paulette, 457 F.3d at 602. The search for weapons was also valid because of the frequency with which drug dealers arm themselves. Id. (citing Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273, 122 S.Ct. 744). Johnson was seen engaging in a hand-to-hand transaction with a man in a high-crime area known for drug activity. While Johnson did not evade police before being stopped, there was additional evidence that Officer Bolte actually saw cash and pieces of a small, off-white substance being exchanged. Therefore, based upon Paulette and the experience of Officer Bolte as a trained, undercover police officer, he had reasonable suspicion to believe that Johnson had engaged in criminal activity sufficient to warrant a Terry stop. Furthermore, if Officer Bolte had reasonable suspicion, Officer Vogelpohl did as well because Officer Bolte relayed sufficient information to him. Cf. Barnes, 910 F.2d at 1345. Additionally, once Johnson had been arrested for possession of a firearm and secured outside of the car, police safety was no longer a valid reason to search the Camry, but the search of the passenger area where Johnson had been sitting was still permissible because circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is `reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.' Arizona v. Gant, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 1719, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (quoting Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 632, 124 S.Ct. 2127, 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment)). Indeed, in some cases, the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee's vehicle and any containers therein. Id. Police could have reasonably believed that ammunition or additional firearms were in the car or in containers in the car, especially in the passenger area searched by police that was formerly occupied by Johnson. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Johnson's suppression motion.