United States v. William Springfield, Sr. , 699 F. App'x 661 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 20 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30229
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00121-SPW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM WOODROW SPRINGFIELD,
Sr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 2, 2017**
Seattle, Washington
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Defendant William Springfield appeals from the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Even if Springfield has standing to challenge the search of the vehicle, the
motion to suppress the evidence obtained through that search was properly denied.
The district court found that the search of the car would have occurred anyway,
even if Springfield had not been arrested and searched. That finding was not
clearly erroneous. The officers testified that an inventory search of a stolen vehicle
was standard procedure. See United States v. Mota, 982 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir.
1993). It is not disputed that the vehicle had been reported stolen. Because the
methamphetamine “ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful
means,” the inevitable discovery doctrine applies. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431,
444 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
2