Court Opinion

ID: 9964972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 15:01:10.648871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:50.946494
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3011     Document: 010111041381                           FILED
                                                        Date Filed: 05/01/2024  Page: 1
                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                         Tenth Circuit

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      May 1, 2024

                            FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                   Christopher M. Wolpert
                          _______________________________________       Clerk of Court

     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

          Plaintiff - Appellee,

     v.                                                    No. 23-3011
                                                 (D.C. No. 5:21-CR-40039-TC-1)
     DARREN JAMES JACKSON, SR.,                             (D. Kan.)

          Defendant - Appellant.

                       __________________________________________

                           ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                        _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BRISCOE, and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.
               _________________________________

          This case arises from a warrantless arrest based on an informant’s

 statements to the police. The informant implicated Mr. Darren James

 Jackson, Sr. in a robbery. So the police arrested Mr. Jackson. When

 arrested, he had a gun. If the police had probable cause to arrest

 Mr. Jackson, the gun would be admissible. 1 Without probable cause,

 *
       This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
 under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
 But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
 otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
 1
       When confronted by police, Mr. Jackson took something out of his
 waistband and slid it under his vehicle. The police later found a gun at this
 spot.
Appellate Case: 23-3011   Document: 010111041381   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 2

 however, the gun would be inadmissible. Wong Sun v. United States,

 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963).

       The district court found probable cause and deemed the gun

 admissible. These rulings led to a conviction of Mr. Jackson for unlawfully

 possessing a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

       On appeal, Mr. Jackson challenges the district court’s assessment of

 probable cause. Even if we credit those challenges, however, we would

 need to make our own assessment of probable cause. And we conclude, like

 the district court, that probable cause existed as to Mr. Jackson’s

 participation in the robbery.

 1.    Two travelers report a robbery.

       The case stemmed from a report by two travelers, who said that they

 had been robbed at gunpoint. The police spoke twice to the travelers.

       The first time, the travelers said that

             an acquaintance, Ms. Kinssley Mathews, had given them a ride,

             Ms. Mathews had stopped the car,

             another car had pulled up behind them, and

             three people had exited the other car and committed the
              robbery.

 Both cars left, leaving the travelers stranded.

                                        2
Appellate Case: 23-3011   Document: 010111041381   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 3

       The next day, the police spoke again to one of the travelers. This

 time, the traveler said that Ms. Mathews had been a passenger and that a

 man had driven.

 2.    Ms. Mathews implicates Mr. Jackson in the robbery.

       The police asked Ms. Mathews about the robbery. She initially

 denied knowing the travelers, but the police told her that the travelers had

 picked her out of a lineup. An officer then confronted Ms. Mathews, and

 she admitted seeing Mr. Jackson participate in the robbery.

 3.    The police arrest Mr. Jackson and find a gun.

       After Ms. Mathews had identified Mr. Jackson, the police conducted

 surveillance and saw Mr. Jackson associating with other suspects in the

 robbery. The police then searched Mr. Jackson’s house 2 and arrested him.

 He was carrying a gun at the time.

 4.    Mr. Jackson challenges the district court’s assessment of
       probable cause.

       In district court, Mr. Jackson moved to suppress evidence of the gun,

 arguing that the police had lacked probable cause for the arrest. The

 2
       At oral argument, the government suggested that probable cause had
 existed for an arrest based on a judge’s finding of probable cause for a
 search warrant. But “[i]t does not follow . . . that probable cause for a
 search warrant would necessarily justify an arrest.” Zurcher v. Stanford
 Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 557 n.6 (1978).

                                        3
Appellate Case: 23-3011   Document: 010111041381   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 4

 district court denied the motion, finding probable cause based in part on

 Ms. Mathews’s account.

       Mr. Jackson challenges the ruling, arguing that probable cause didn’t

 exist and that the district court erroneously

             deferred to the police officers’ assessment of Ms. Mathews’s
              credibility,

             relied on the voluntariness of Ms. Mathews’s statement,

             disregarded facts that could have diminished Ms. Mathews’s
              credibility, and

             treated Ms. Mathews as an eyewitness rather than as an
              informant.

 Based on these arguments, Mr. Jackson urges us to reverse the denial of

 the motion to suppress or to remand for further findings.

 5.    Probable cause existed even if the district court had erred.

       We assume for the sake of argument that the district court erred in all

 these respects. Even if the court had erred, however, we would need to

 conduct de novo review over the assessment of probable cause. See United

 States v. U.S. Currency $31,828, 760 F.2d 228, 230 (8th Cir. 1985)

 (declining to remand, despite an error in finding probable cause, based on

 the appellate court’s independent conclusion that probable cause existed).

                                        4
Appellate Case: 23-3011   Document: 010111041381   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 5

       a.     We must decide whether probable cause exists based on all
              the circumstances.

       Probable cause “exists ‘if facts and circumstances within the

 arresting officer’s knowledge and of which he or she has reasonably

 trustworthy information are sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe

 that the arrestee has committed . . . an offense.’” McFarland v. Childers,

 212 F.3d 1178, 1186 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Jones v. City & Cnty. of

 Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1210 (10th Cir. 1988)). To determine whether the

 officers had probable cause to arrest Mr. Jackson, we apply de novo review

 based on the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Maley, 1 F.4th

 816, 821 (10th Cir. 2021).

       The totality of circumstances can involve the informant’s track

 record of providing accurate information, corroboration of an informant

 through independent evidence, face-to-face delivery of information,

 statements against the informant’s penal interest, ability of the informant

 to observe the events first-hand, explicit or detailed descriptions of the

 alleged wrongdoing, potential motivations to lie, predictive accuracy of the

 information, and contemporaneous reporting. See Illinois v. Gates,

 462 U.S. 213, 234, 241–42 (1983) (corroboration of information through

 independent evidence, ability to observe events first-hand, and explicit and

 detailed descriptions of the alleged wrongdoing); United States v. Brown,

 496 F.3d 1070, 1075, 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) (informant’s track

                                        5
Appellate Case: 23-3011   Document: 010111041381   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 6

 record, motive to lie, and contemporaneous reporting); United States v.

 Jenkins, 313 F.3d 549, 554–55 (10th Cir. 2002) (face-to-face delivery of

 information, statement against penal interest, ability to observe events

 first-hand, and explicit and detailed descriptions of the alleged

 wrongdoing); United States v. Sturmoski, 971 F.2d 452, 457 (10th Cir.

 1992) (corroboration through independent evidence).

       b.     Some factors undermine Ms. Mathews’s reliability.

       Some of these factors weigh against probable cause. For example,

 Ms. Mathews

             initially denied knowing the travelers and

             had a motive to curry favor with the police and to implicate
              Mr. Jackson.

 Before the robbery, Ms. Mathews was already facing drug charges and was

 a known drug-user. In addition, the travelers had already told the police

 that they thought Ms. Mathews had set up the robbery. So Ms. Mathews

 had reasons to downplay her own involvement.

       Ms. Mathews also had a potential motive to put the blame on

 Mr. Jackson. Ms. Mathews told the police that she had a contentious

 history with Mr. Jackson, and the police implied that they thought

 Ms. Mathews was covering for others:

       Police:            I don’t think that you were a part of it, but I
                          think you know who was, because these people
                          picked you out of a lineup. So the decision you

                                        6
Appellate Case: 23-3011   Document: 010111041381    Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 7

                          need to make is do I want to be part of this or
                          be a witness?

       Ms. Mathews:       A witness.

       Police:            So tell me what happened.

 R. vol. 1, at 62–63.

       Finally, Ms. Mathews’s account differed in four respects from what

 the police had seen or heard from the travelers:

       1.     The two travelers were at first unable to describe any of the
              robbers or either vehicle. The next day, one traveler said that a
              male had driven the car and that Ms. Mathews had been a
              passenger. Ms. Mathews later said that she had driven the car.

       2.     This traveler also described the car as light-colored and
              possibly gray. Ms. Mathews said that the car was blue (rather
              than light or gray).

       3.     Ms. Mathews also said that Mr. Jackson had a gun and
              participated in the robbery; the travelers didn’t say that anyone
              else in their car had gotten out or had a gun.

       4.     Ms. Mathews said that the travelers had no luggage; the police
              saw that the travelers had a lot of luggage.

       c.     Other factors support Ms. Mathews’s reliability.

       But we have three other reasons to credit Ms. Mathews’s account:

       1.     Ms. Mathews’s account was corroborated by other independent
              evidence.

       2.     She was present at the robbery, so she wasn’t relying on
              second-hand accounts.

       3.     Ms. Mathews didn’t make her statements anonymously.

                                        7
Appellate Case: 23-3011   Document: 010111041381   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 8

       First, the court can appropriately rely on the corroboration from the

 travelers’ statements and surveillance of Mr. Jackson. For example, the

 accounts by Ms. Mathews and the two travelers bore five common features:

       1.     All of the accounts were consistent about why the travelers had
              contacted Ms. Mathews.

       2.     One traveler said that Ms. Mathews wanted to visit a cemetery,
              and Ms. Mathews told the police that she had expressed a
              desire to visit her son’s gravesite.

       3.     All of the accounts involved two cars.

       4.     All of the accounts had the travelers driving to Salina, Kansas,
              when the robbery had taken place.

       5.     Ms. Mathews and one of the travelers said that another person
              had been in the car. Ms. Mathews identified the person as
              Mr. Jackson, and one of the travelers described the person as a
              man. 3

       Along with the travelers’ accounts, the police had evidence of their

 surveillance of Mr. Jackson, which showed him associating with the other

 suspects and driving a gray car. That evidence corroborates Ms. Mathews’s

 statement.

 3
       The traveler also told the police that the man was white and had short
 brown hair and a dark goatee. About a month later, Mr. Jackson was
 photographed for a mug shot; that photograph shows that Mr. Jackson was
 white with short brown hair and a dark goatee. Then, when the police made
 the arrest, they could see that Mr. Jackson was white and had a dark
 goatee.

                                        8
Appellate Case: 23-3011   Document: 010111041381   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 9

       A police investigator also knew about police reports of domestic

 violence, which corroborated Ms. Mathews’s statements about her

 tumultuous relationship with Mr. Jackson.

       Second, we consider Ms. Mathews’s basis for implicating

 Mr. Jackson. Ms. Mathews said that she was physically present at the

 robbery. So the police knew that Ms. Mathews wasn’t relying on second-

 hand information. Ms. Mathews’s presence at the scene supports the

 reliability of her account. See United States v. Jenkins, 313 F.3d 549, 554–

 55 (10th Cir. 2002).

       Third, Ms. Mathews didn’t make her statements anonymously. We are

 “less skeptical” of informants who are not anonymous. Donahue v.

 Wihongi, 948 F.3d 1177, 1192 (10th Cir. 2020). After all, if a known

 informant fabricates information, the informant can be held responsible.

 United States v. Tucker, 305 F.3d 1193, 1201 (10th Cir. 2002) (explaining

 the reliability of informants who are not anonymous).

       d.     The balance of factors establishes probable cause for
              robbery.

       On balance, we regard Ms. Mathews’s account as reliable enough for

 probable cause as to Mr. Jackson’s participation in the robbery.

       “[P]robable cause ‘is not a high bar’ . . . ‘and credibility

 determinations are seldom crucial.’” Hinkle v. Beckham Cnty. Bd. of Cnty.

 Comm’rs, 962 F.3d 1204, 1220 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting Kaley v. United

                                        9
Appellate Case: 23-3011    Document: 010111041381   Date Filed: 05/01/2024   Page: 10

  States, 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014), and Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 121

  (1975)).

        Even though Ms. Mathews had no way of knowing what the travelers

  had told the police, their accounts were largely consistent. Ms. Mathews

  told the police that a car had followed them, just as the travelers had said.

  She also told the police that Mr. Jackson had been present, and one of the

  travelers had also said that a man had arrived with Ms. Mathews.

        Despite the inconsistencies, a prudent police officer could regard the

  information as sufficiently trustworthy to believe that Mr. Jackson had

  participated in the robbery. We thus conclude that probable cause existed

  and uphold the denial of Mr. Jackson’s motion to suppress.

                                       * * *

        We reject Mr. Jackson’s challenges to the finding of probable cause

  for the arrest. Even if the district court had erred in assessing probable

  cause, we would need to make our own assessment. In conducting that

  assessment, we conclude that the totality of circumstances supplied

  probable cause as to Mr. Jackson’s participation in a robbery. We thus

  affirm the conviction.

                                       Entered for the Court

                                       Robert E. Bacharach
                                       Circuit Judge

                                         10