Court Opinion

ID: 9839401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 00:00:44.963899+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:16.828222
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10923         Document: 00516892112             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/12/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10923
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                             September 12, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Drayon Conley,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:20-CR-347-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Drayon Conley entered a conditional-guilty plea to being a felon in
   possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), reserving his
   right to contest the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Conley was
   sentenced to 105-months’ imprisonment.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10923     Document: 00516892112           Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/12/2023

                                    No. 22-10923

          He contends the court erred by denying his motion to suppress
   evidence seized in connection with an admittedly proper traffic stop. He
   subsequently consented to have his vehicle searched. He maintains the scope
   of the stop was expanded without reasonable suspicion of additional criminal
   conduct.
          For the contested denial of a suppression motion, our court reviews
   “the factual determinations for clear error and the legal conclusions de
   novo”. United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361, 369 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation
   omitted). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party who
   prevailed in the district court—here, the Government. Id.
          Whether the record demonstrates reasonable suspicion is a question
   of law reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. McKinney, 980 F.3d 485, 491
   (5th Cir. 2020). The denial of a motion to suppress “should be upheld if
   there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it”. United States v.
   Nelson, 990 F.3d 947, 953 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Moreover, our
   court “may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record”.
   United States v. Taylor, 482 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2007).
          Conley concedes the initial stop was justified based on his traffic
   violation. Accordingly, our court reviews whether the Officer’s actions, after
   the legitimate stop, “were reasonably related to the circumstances that
   justified the stop, or to dispelling his reasonable suspicion developed during
   the stop”. United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507 (5th Cir. 2004) (en
   banc). The district court, without holding a hearing, concluded the Officer’s
   actions were permissible because Conley was: driving a vehicle registered to
   someone else; serving a term of supervised release; and present in the parking
   lot of a motel known for drug trafficking and prostitution. The court,
   therefore, concluded the Officer “was justified in asking Conley to exit his

                                         2
Case: 22-10923        Document: 00516892112           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/12/2023

                                       No. 22-10923

   vehicle for further questioning”, and “the stop was not prolonged beyond
   the point necessary for [the Officer] to satisfy his reasonable suspicion”.
             First, driving a vehicle registered to someone else can, in combination
   with other factors, support reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Reyes,
   963 F.3d 482, 488–89 (5th Cir. 2020) (including vehicle registration in list of
   “specific and articulable” facts supporting reasonable suspicion). Second,
   Conley confirmed he was on supervised release and told the Officer he was:
   previously found with drugs and a firearm; convicted of being a felon in
   possession of a firearm; and recently released from prison. His criminal
   history, in combination with other factors, can contribute to reasonable
   suspicion. See id. at 489; United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755, 758 (5th
   Cir. 2003) (discussing reasonable suspicion to extend stop).              Finally,
   Conley’s presence in the parking lot of a motel known for drug trafficking and
   prostitution “can contribute to a finding of reasonable suspicion”, even
   though his “presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone,
   is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the
   person is committing a crime”. United States v. Roper, 63 F.4th 473, 478 (5th
   Cir. 2023) (emphasis and citation omitted).
             The Officer’s reasonable suspicion further coalesced when he
   observed tattoos on Conley emblematic of gang membership. He admitted
   to the Officer he belonged to a gang, and had been a member since 1997. (But,
   Conley stated: “I don’t be out there gangbanging. I don’t gangbang”. And
   he later stated: “I don’t do that gang [stuff] anymore”.) An officer’s
   knowledge that a person is a member of a gang supports the officer’s
   reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity. See McKinney, 980 F.3d
   at 493.
             Conley also failed to present the Officer with a valid driver’s license,
   even though Conley had been driving the vehicle, and the records check

                                            3
Case: 22-10923      Document: 00516892112          Page: 4   Date Filed: 09/12/2023

                                    No. 22-10923

   revealed no active driver’s license in Conley’s name. The absence of a valid
   driver’s license can also contribute to reasonable suspicion. See United States
   v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 361 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 622 F.3d 383
   (5th Cir. 2010) (discussing reasonable suspicion when license suspended).
          Viewing the totality of the circumstances in the requisite light most
   favorable to the Government, the court did not err in concluding the Officer
   developed reasonable suspicion of criminal activity apart from Conley’s
   traffic violation. See Reyes, 963 F.3d at 487, 489. Certainly, “[t]he police
   must diligently pursue a means of investigation that is likely to confirm or
   dispel their suspicions quickly”. Pack, 612 F.3d at 361. But, the Officer met
   that requirement because less than five minutes passed between when he
   informed Conley of the reason he was stopped and Conley’s consent to
   search the vehicle. E.g., id. at 361–62 (holding “a delay of only eight
   minutes” was reasonable in the light “of suspicious facts”).
          AFFIRMED.

                                         4