United States v. Hairston , 409 F. App'x 668 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-4303
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TSAIKUWN ALDAGO HAIRSTON,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Danville.    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (4:08-cr-00022-jlk-1)
    Submitted:   December 29, 2010            Decided:   January 27, 2011
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark T. Williams, WILLIAMS, MORRISON, LIGHT & MOREAU, Danville,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States
    Attorney, R. Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tsaikuwn Aldago Hairston appeals his convictions after
    a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to distribute more than
    fifty grams of cocaine base, and more than five kilograms of
    cocaine   powder,    in     violation     of    
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1),      846
    (2006), one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
    drug   trafficking    crime,       in    violation     of      
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)
    (2006), one count of perjury, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1623
    (2006), and one count of committing a criminal offense while on
    pretrial release, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3147
     (2006).                             He
    claims the district court erred in: (1) denying his motion to
    suppress evidence seized from a vehicle during a search incident
    to a lawful arrest; (2) denying his motion in limine to exclude
    evidence; and (3) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal.
    Finding no error, we affirm.
    In reviewing the district court’s denial of Hairston’s
    suppression   motion,       this    court      reviews    the       district      court's
    factual     determinations         for     clear       error         and   any      legal
    determinations de novo.            United States v. Kelly, 
    592 F.3d 586
    ,
    589 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    130 S. Ct. 3374
     (2010).                             Because
    the    district     court     denied      Hairston’s        motion,        this     court
    construes   the   evidence      “in      the   light     most       favorable     to   the
    government,” the prevailing party below.                 
    Id.
    2
    A search incident to a lawful arrest is an exception
    to     the    warrant      requirement         that    permits          “law    enforcement
    officers       following     a   lawful       arrest       [to]    .    .   .   search      the
    arrestee’s person and the area within his immediate control.”
    United       States   v.   Murphy,      
    552 F.3d 405
    ,       410   (4th    Cir.     2009)
    (internal       quotation     marks     and        citations      omitted).         Hairston
    contends that, under Arizona v. Gant, 
    129 S. Ct. 1710
     (2009),
    the search in this case could not be justified as a search
    incident to a lawful arrest because he had already been removed
    from the vehicle and secured in the police car when the police
    conducted the search.
    However,     we   need    not       reach    the    Gant     issue      as   the
    evidence obtained from the vehicle search is admissible under
    the inevitable discovery doctrine.                     In 1984, the Supreme Court
    recognized        the      “inevitable         discovery”          exception        to      the
    exclusionary rule, stating that “when, as here, the evidence in
    question would inevitably have been discovered without reference
    to the police error or misconduct, there is no nexus sufficient
    to provide a taint and the evidence is admissible.”                                    Nix v.
    Williams, 
    467 U.S. 431
    , 448 (1984).
    Police officers frequently perform inventory searches
    when    they    impound     vehicles      or       detain    suspects.          See,     e.g.,
    Illinois v.       Lafayette,       
    462 U.S. 640
    ,     648      (1983)      (holding
    admissible evidence recovered during an inventory search of a
    3
    shoulder bag possessed by a lawfully arrested person); South
    Dakota v. Opperman, 
    428 U.S. 364
    , 376 (1976) (holding admissible
    evidence   discovered    during     the    impoundment      of    an   illegally
    parked automobile).      Such searches “serve to protect an owner’s
    property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure
    against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to
    guard the police from danger.”             Colorado v. Bertine, 
    479 U.S. 367
    , 372 (1987); see also United States v. Banks, 
    482 F.3d 733
    ,
    739 (4th Cir. 2007) (“A proper inventory search is merely an
    incidental    administrative   step       following   arrest     and   preceding
    incarceration, conducted to protect the arrestee from theft of
    his possessions, to protect the police from false accusations of
    theft, and to remove dangerous items from the arrestee prior to
    his jailing.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
    For the inventory search exception to apply, the search must
    have “be[en] conducted according to standardized criteria,” such
    as pursuant to a uniform police department policy, Bertine, 
    479 U.S. at
    374 n.6, and performed in good faith, Banks, 
    482 F.3d at 739
    ; see also United States v. Brown, 
    787 F.2d 929
    , 932 (4th
    Cir. 1986).
    In   this   case,   if   the    officer    had   not    conducted    a
    search incident to arrest, an inventory search of the car would
    have been conducted, wherein the evidence in question would have
    been   discovered.      Because     the   items   seized    would      have   been
    4
    inevitably discovered, the district court was correct in denying
    Hairston’s motion to suppress.
    Hairston next challenges the district court’s denial
    of his motion in limine to exclude the evidence of the ion scan
    results that indicated the presence of cocaine on money seized
    from Hairston’s person and the vehicle he was driving.                           Hairston
    contends        that   the   evidence         was   irrelevant          and      unfairly
    prejudicial under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 and that
    the method used to test the money was not reliable.
    “[R]elevance        typically       presents         a    low     barrier   to
    admissibility.” United States v. Leftenant, 
    341 F.3d 338
    , 346
    (4th Cir. 2003). Thus, evidence is relevant if it is “worth
    consideration by the jury” or has a “plus value.”                           United States
    v. Queen, 
    132 F.3d 991
    , 998 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation
    marks    omitted).       Rule    403    provides      a    “more      limited     bar   to
    otherwise admissible evidence.”                United States v. Basham, 
    561 F.3d 302
    , 326 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 
    130 S. Ct. 3353
    (2010).     Rule 403 “only requires suppression of evidence that
    results in unfair prejudice — prejudice that damages an opponent
    for reasons other than its probative value, for instance, an
    appeal     to     emotion,   and       only    when       that       unfair     prejudice
    substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence.”
    United States v. Mohr, 
    318 F.3d 613
    , 619-20 (4th Cir. 2003)
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    5
    Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits the
    admission into evidence of an expert’s testimony if it concerns
    (1) scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge that
    (2) will aid the trier of fact to understand or resolve a fact
    in issue.       Fed. R. Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms.,
    Inc.,   
    509 U.S. 579
    ,   592    (1993).           This    inquiry     requires    an
    analysis of whether the reasoning and methodology underlying the
    expert’s proffered opinion is reliable and whether such opinion
    is relevant to the fact at issue.                      See 
    id. at 591-95
    .            This
    court reviews the district court’s evidentiary ruling for abuse
    of discretion.        United States v. Brooks, 
    111 F.3d 365
    , 371 (4th
    Cir. 1997).       “A district court abuses its discretion when it
    acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially
    recognized      factors     constraining         its    exercise     of    discretion,
    relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an
    error of law.”        United States v. Delfino, 
    510 F.3d 468
    , 470 (4th
    Cir. 2007).       After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
    district    court     did   not   abuse     its    discretion       in    allowing    the
    admission into evidence of the ion scan results.
    Hairston      lastly       challenges          the   district      court’s
    decision denying his motion for acquittal and finding there was
    sufficient evidence to convict him of conspiracy to distribute
    crack   cocaine,       carrying      a    firearm       in    furtherance       of   drug
    trafficking,     and     perjury.         This    court       reviews     the   district
    6
    court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo.
    United States v. Kingrea, 
    573 F.3d 186
    , 194 (4th Cir. 2009).                            A
    defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a
    heavy burden.          United States v. Beidler, 
    110 F.3d 1064
    , 1067
    (4th Cir. 1997).           The verdict of a jury must be sustained “if,
    viewing     the      evidence     in   the       light   most     favorable      to   the
    prosecution,         the     verdict        is     supported       by     ‘substantial
    evidence.’”         United States v. Smith, 
    451 F.3d 209
    , 216 (4th Cir.
    2006) (citations omitted).
    Substantial       evidence    is    “evidence      that    a   reasonable
    finder    of    fact    could     accept     as    adequate      and     sufficient    to
    support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
    doubt.”        
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    Furthermore, “[t]he jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the
    credibility of the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the
    evidence       presented.”         Beidler,       
    110 F.3d at 1067
         (internal
    quotation       marks      and     citation        omitted).            “Reversal     for
    insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare case where the
    prosecution’s failure is clear.”                  
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks
    and citation omitted).
    We   have   carefully    reviewed         the    record    and    conclude
    that the evidence was sufficient to convict on all three counts.
    See United States v. Burgos, 
    94 F.3d 849
    , 857 (4th Cir. 1996)
    (en banc) (discussing the elements of conspiracy to distribute
    7
    and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine); United
    States     v.   Mitchell,     
    104 F.3d 649
    ,    652    (4th       Cir.   1997)
    (discussing     the     elements    of       possession      of    a     firearm   in
    furtherance of drug trafficking); United States v. Wilkinson,
    
    137 F.3d 214
    , 224 (4th Cir. 1998) (discussing the elements of
    perjury).
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.     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
    8
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-4303

Citation Numbers: 409 F. App'x 668

Judges: Gregory, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 1/27/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023

Authorities (22)

United States v. Basham , 561 F.3d 302 ( 2009 )

United States v. Wayne Morris Mitchell , 104 F.3d 649 ( 1997 )

United States v. Roland Demingo Queen, A/K/A Mingo , 132 F.3d 991 ( 1997 )

United States v. Ashon Leftenant , 341 F.3d 338 ( 2003 )

United States v. Stephanie Mohr , 318 F.3d 613 ( 2003 )

United States v. Gregory Wayne Banks , 482 F.3d 733 ( 2007 )

United States v. Eric Bernard Smith, A/K/A E, A/K/A Pac-Man,... , 451 F.3d 209 ( 2006 )

United States v. Morgan Dwight Brown , 787 F.2d 929 ( 1986 )

United States v. Thomas A. Wilkinson, Iii, United States of ... , 137 F.3d 214 ( 1998 )

United States v. Kelly , 592 F.3d 586 ( 2010 )

United States v. Neil Roger Beidler , 110 F.3d 1064 ( 1997 )

united-states-v-edwin-hawley-brooks-jr-united-states-of-america-v-john , 111 F.3d 365 ( 1997 )

United States v. Frank Kahled Burgos, United States of ... , 94 F.3d 849 ( 1996 )

United States v. Kingrea , 573 F.3d 186 ( 2009 )

Illinois v. Lafayette , 103 S. Ct. 2605 ( 1983 )

United States v. Delfino , 510 F.3d 468 ( 2007 )

United States v. Murphy , 552 F.3d 405 ( 2009 )

South Dakota v. Opperman , 96 S. Ct. 3092 ( 1976 )

Colorado v. Bertine , 107 S. Ct. 738 ( 1987 )

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 113 S. Ct. 2786 ( 1993 )

View All Authorities »