Court Opinion

ID: 1001815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:01:20.77785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:05:04.608285
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4897

JONATHAN MCDONALD,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CR-99-382)

Submitted: May 31, 2000

Decided: June 16, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Douglas A. Steinberg, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Nicholas R. Koberstein, Special Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan McDonald was convicted on his conditional guilty plea
of misdemeanor possession of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844
(1994). A United States Park Police officer arrested McDonald in a
parking area by the George Washington Memorial Parkway. The offi-
cer discovered a small quantity of heroin during a search of McDon-
ald's vehicle. In this appeal, McDonald assigns error to the district
court's order affirming the magistrate judge's denial of his motion to
suppress the fruits of that search. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). Find-
ing no error in the district court's order, we affirm.

We review de novo the district court's finding of probable cause
to search McDonald's vehicle. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S.
690, 691 (1996); United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 118 (4th Cir.
1996). After a thorough review of the record, we find that the evi-
dence before the magistrate judge sufficiently demonstrated that the
officer had ample evidence "to warrant a prudent[person] in believ-
ing that the [defendant] had committed or was committing an
offense." Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). Despite the fact that
none of pieces of evidence the officer observed leading up to his deci-
sion to search the car were in and of themselves illegal, we recognize
that there are "circumstances in which wholly lawful conduct might
justify the suspicion that criminal activity was afoot." Reid v. Geor-
gia, 448 U.S. 438, 411 (1980) (per curiam). There was no error in the
district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's finding of prob-
able cause to search the vehicle. See Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518
U.S. 938, 940 (1996).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2