United States v. Walter Hill , 313 F. App'x 921 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-1578
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                * Western District of Missouri.
    *
    Walter J. Hill,                         *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 13, 2008
    Filed: March 9, 2009
    ___________
    Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Walter J. Hill appeals from the order of the District Court1 denying his motion
    to suppress evidence. We affirm.
    In March 2007, the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department was searching
    for a female murder suspect who reportedly had changed her appearance to look like
    a man. A detective working the case saw several people leave the Kansas City
    1
    The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
    District of Missouri, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable
    Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
    residence where police believed the murder suspect was staying. When those people
    got into a Buick LeSabre and drove away, the detective asked two officers to do a
    vehicle check to see if the suspect was among those in the car. The officers followed
    the LeSabre for a short distance and observed the driver commit three traffic
    violations (failing to signal twice and driving in the wrong lane) before pulling the car
    over.
    The LeSabre's windows were darkly tinted, so the officers asked the occupants
    to roll down the windows. When they did so, one of the officers saw a rifle barrel on
    the floor of the back seat near Hill's feet. The occupants were removed from the car
    and detained for various reasons. The LeSabre was searched before it was towed.
    Officers found two rifles and ammunition. Hill was charged in a one-count indictment
    as a felon in possession of a firearm. The District Court, after an evidentiary hearing,
    denied Hill's motion to suppress the evidence retrieved from the LeSabre. Hill then
    entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his
    suppression motion. He now exercises that right. We review the District Court's
    factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
    Cartier, 
    543 F.3d 442
    , 445–46 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___ (2009).
    For his only issue on appeal, Hill contends that the reliability of the Kansas City
    Police Department's confidential informant was unverified and the information
    received from that person was so vague that the officers' "seizure" of Hill "was not
    supported by reasonable suspicion." Br. of Appellant at 4. We assume Hill is
    referring to the information that police received regarding the murder suspect, which
    led them to the residence where the individuals were observed getting into the
    LeSabre. But the officers did not develop reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
    stop the LeSabre because of any information that was given to the police by an
    informant. When the officers stopped the vehicle, they had seen the driver commit
    three traffic violations, a fact that Hill does not dispute, and that is why they had
    probable cause to stop the car. It is irrelevant how the officers came to be in the
    -2-
    neighborhood or who they thought might have been in the LeSabre when they pulled
    it over. The traffic violations supplied the necessary probable cause for the officers
    to make the stop, and as we have said many times, such a stop does not violate the
    Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Sallis, 
    507 F.3d 646
    , 649 (8th Cir.
    2007). This is true regardless of any subjective reason the officers may have had for
    stopping the vehicle. See Whren v. United States, 
    517 U.S. 806
    , 813 (1996)
    ("Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment
    analysis.").
    We see no error of law or fact and affirm the order denying Hill's motion to
    suppress.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1578

Citation Numbers: 313 F. App'x 921

Filed Date: 3/9/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023