United States v. Quaites , 74 F. App'x 385 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60804
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ISAIAH DAVID QUAITES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:01-CR-46-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Isaiah David Quaites pleaded guilty to four counts of
causing another person to make false statements in connection
with the purchase of firearms. He appeals the district court’s
denial of a motion to suppress evidence of 16 firearms that were
seized during a stop of the vehicle driven by him. Because the
Government conceded that it did not intend to rely on Terry v.
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968), as a basis for the stop, Quaites’s
arguments that the stop violated Terry are irrelevant.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-60804
-2-
“A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is
reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard as to the facts and
de novo for questions of law.” United States v. Buchner, 7 F.3d
1149, 1154 (5th Cir. 1993)(citation omitted). “[U]nder the
automobile exception police may conduct a warrantless search of
an automobile and any containers therein if they have probable
cause to believe that it contains contraband or evidence of a
crime.” Id. (citing California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 579-80
(1991)). Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances
within the officer’s knowledge are sufficient in themselves to
warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense
has been committed. United States v. Mendez, 27 F.3d 126, 129-30
(5th Cir. 1994). A probable cause determination should be based
on the “totality of the circumstances,” and the evidence in
support of such “must be viewed in light of the observations,
knowledge, and training of the law enforcement officers involved
in the warrantless search.” Buchner, 7 F.3d at 1154 (internal
quotations and citation omitted).
It was not unreasonable for the stopping officer to conclude
that Quaites and his accomplice had committed an offense and that
evidence of that offense was in Quaites’s car. Although Quaites
disputes each individual rationale offered by the officer in
support of a determination of probable cause, it is the totality
of the circumstances that must be examined. See Buchner, 7 F.3d
at 1154. The totality of the circumstances revealed that:
No. 02-60804
-3-
(1) Quaites and his accomplice had purchased an unusual number of
handguns in a manner that several dealers found suspicious;
(2) two of the handguns previously purchased by the accomplice
had been used in connection with crimes in Chicago; and
(3) Quaites was driving a car that bore Illinois license plates
and that was registered to Quaites at an Illinois address.
The district court did not clearly err in denying the motion to
suppress.
AFFIRMED.