United States v. Dawson , 103 F. App'x 732 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES NATHANIEL DAWSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-02-1305)
Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: July 19, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, United States
Attorney, John C. Duane, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Nathaniel Dawson appeals his conviction for
possession with intent to distribute five or more grams of cocaine
base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B) (2000).
Dawson asserts the district court erred when it ruled his arrest
was valid and denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained in a
search incident to the arrest. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s factual findings
underlying its determination of a motion to suppress for clear
error and the district court’s legal conclusions de novo. United
States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). When a
suppression motion has been denied, we review the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seidman,
156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
“If the police have a valid arrest warrant for one person
and they reasonably and in good faith arrest another, the Supreme
Court has ruled that the arrest of the ‘wrong person’ is proper.”
United States v. McEachern, 675 F.2d 618, 621 (4th Cir. 1982)
(citing Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 802-04 (1971)). When the
legality of arrest is established, officers are entitled to conduct
a search of the arrestee and inspect objects found on his person
without a warrant. Id. at 622. Our review of the record convinces
us that officers acted reasonably and in good faith when they
arrested Dawson believing he was someone for whom they had a valid
arrest warrant. Accordingly, the district court did not err when
it denied Dawson’s motion to suppress evidence found in the search
of his person incident to arrest. We therefore affirm Dawson’s
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 -