Court Opinion

ID: 9962470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 18:00:58.148656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:16.545764
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30610            Document: 58-1        Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/23/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-30610
                                  Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                  ____________                                 April 23, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

John Michael Murphy,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Louisiana
                            USDC No. 5:22-CR-148-1
                   ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Defendant-Appellant John Michael Murphy conditionally pleaded
guilty to intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and was
sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment. He argues that the district court
erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a pat
down performed at the traffic stop that led to his arrest.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30610        Document: 58-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/23/2024

                                 No. 23-30610

       “When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, [we]
review[] factual findings for clear error and the ultimate constitutionality of
law enforcement action de novo.” United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588,
594 (5th Cir. 2014). Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party, and “the clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong”
where the district court’s ruling is based on live oral testimony. United States
v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). We will uphold a district court’s ruling on a motion to
suppress “if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it.”
United States v. Massi, 761 F.3d 512, 520 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
       Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968), an officer conducting an
investigatory stop may pat down a suspect for weapons if “a reasonably
prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his
safety or that of others was in danger.” During a Terry pat down, an officer
may remove and seize an item based on a reasonable belief that it may pose a
danger. See United States v. Majors, 328 F.3d 791, 795 (5th Cir. 2003).
Moreover, in some circumstances an officer may seize other contraband.
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 374 (1993). To this end, if an officer
“feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately
apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspect’s privacy beyond that
already authorized by the officer’s search for weapons.”          Id.   “[T]he
dispositive question . . . is whether the officer who conducted the search was
acting within the lawful bounds marked by Terry at the time he gained
probable cause to believe that [the item] was contraband.” Id. at 377.
       “To have probable cause, it is not necessary that the officer know that
the discovered [item] is contraband or evidence of a crime, but only that there
be a practical, nontechnical probability that incriminating evidence is
involved.”     United States v. Turner, 839 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir.

                                       2
Case: 23-30610       Document: 58-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/23/2024

                                 No. 23-30610

2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (addressing plain view
doctrine). “When reviewing probable cause determinations, we consider the
totality of the circumstances—including the officers’ training and experience
as well as their knowledge of the situation at hand.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
       To any extent that Murphy challenges the district court’s finding that
the pat down itself was constitutionally permissible, his argument fails. The
officer who conducted the pat down articulated specific facts supporting a
reasonable belief that Murphy could be armed and dangerous. See Terry, 392
U.S. at 27; United States v. Michelletti, 13 F.3d 838, 840–41 (5th Cir. 1994)
(en banc).
       Moreover, Murphy fails to show error in the district court’s
determination that it was constitutionally permissible for the officer to have
a bag of methamphetamine removed from Murphy’s pants during the pat
down. In this regard, the record supports the district court’s implicit finding
that the officer had probable cause to believe that the object he felt in
Murphy’s pants was contraband. See Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 374, 377; Turner,
839 F.3d at 433.
       AFFIRMED.

                                      3