United States v. Bain , 135 F. App'x 695 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-31016
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS ANTHONY BAIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(5:04-CR-50008-ALL)
--------------------
Before WIENER, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Thomas Anthony Bain appeals his
conditional guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and
possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine. Bain argues that the district court erred by
denying his motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained as
a result of a traffic stop. He contends that the traffic stop was
unlawfully prolonged after the computer check on his license was
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
completed, thereby invalidating his consent to the search of his
car. He asserts that the search of the cigarette package
containing a marijuana cigarette was beyond the scope of the
protective search for weapons that was being conducted when the
marijuana cigarette was found, making his arrest for possession of
marijuana unlawful. He maintains that the search of the safe in
his car containing methamphetamine was illegal because he did not
consent to the search of the safe and because his arrest was
unlawful.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the
district court’s factual findings for clear error and review the
district “court’s ultimate conclusions on Fourth Amendment issues
drawn from those facts” de novo. United States v. Santiago, 310
F.3d 336, 340 (5th Cir. 2002). We view the evidence introduced at
the suppression hearing in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party. Id.
The computer check of Bain’s license revealed that his license
was suspended, giving the officer probable cause to arrest Bain,
meeting a higher standard than the reasonable suspicion standard
necessary to continue the traffic stop. See United States v.
Baker, 47 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 1995) (probable cause more
stringent standard than reasonable suspicion). Accordingly, the
prolonging of Bain’s detention did not violate the Fourth
Amendment. See United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755, 758 (5th
Cir. 2003).
2
An arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the officer
making the arrest has probable cause to arrest the defendant for
any crime, regardless of whether the defendant can be lawfully
arrested for the crime for which the officer states or believes he
is making the arrest. Devenpeck v. Alford, 125 S. Ct. 588, 593-95
(2004). As the officers had probable cause to arrest Bain for
driving on a suspended license, Bain’s arrest was lawful even if
the search of the cigarette package containing the marijuana
cigarette violated the Fourth Amendment. See id. Likewise, Bain’s
arrest was lawful, the subsequent search of the car safe containing
methamphetamine was a legal search incident to a valid arrest. See
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460-61 (1981).
We do not reach the issue whether the search of the cigarette
package violated the Fourth Amendment because the marijuana
cigarette would have been discovered inevitably during the legal
search of the car after Bain’s arrest and was not suppressible
regardless of whether it was initially obtained illegally. See
United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1108 (5th Cir. 1993).
Neither do we reach the issue whether Bain’s consent to the search
of the car was valid because none of the challenged evidence was
suppressible, even in the absence of consent.
AFFIRMED.
3