United States v. Gordon , 237 F. App'x 868 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYRICK LARRY GORDON, a/k/a Ty Gordon, a/k/a
Gordon Edgebert, a/k/a Edgebert Gordon,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (2:06-cr-00046-PMD-2)
Submitted: July 18, 2007 Decided: August 13, 2007
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Stanley Feldman, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Reginald I. Lloyd, United States Attorney, John C. Duane, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrick Larry Gordon appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion to suppress evidence seized after a traffic
stop. After the court denied the motion, Gordon pled guilty to one
count of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of
cocaine base and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C) (2000). We affirm the conviction
and sentence.
This Court reviews the district court’s factual findings
underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district
court’s legal determinations de novo. United States v. Grossman,
400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). When a suppression motion has
been denied, this Court reviews the evidence in the light most
favorable to the government. Id.Observation of any traffic violation, no matter how
minor, gives an officer probable cause to stop the driver. United
States v. Hassan El, 5 F.3d 726, 731 (4th Cir. 1993). A stop for
a traffic violation, “does not become unreasonable merely because
the officer has intuitive suspicions that the occupants of the car
are engaged in some sort of criminal activity.” Id. A routine and
lawful traffic stop permits an officer to detain the motorist to
request a driver’s license and vehicle registration, to run a
computer check, and to issue a citation. United States v. Brugal,
209 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2000). To further detain the driver
- 2 -
requires a reasonable suspicion on the part of the investigating
officer that criminal activity is afoot. Id. In determining
whether there was reasonable suspicion, the court must look at the
totality of the circumstances. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S.
1, 8 (1989). Additionally, officers are permitted to draw on their
experience and specialized training to make inferences from and
deductions about cumulative evidence. United States v. Arvizu, 534
U.S. 266, 273 (2002). Thus, a person’s behavior, though appearing
innocent, may raise questions justifying a detention when viewed in
the totality and combined with the police officer’s knowledge and
experience. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125-26 (2000).
We find the district court did not clearly err in finding
that the two police officers observed Gordon driving a car that was
speeding. As a result of their observations, they were justified
in stopping Gordon’s car.
Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. 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
- 3 -