US v. Marvin Williams

Filing 920090710

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4788

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARVIN WAYNE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge (8:07-cr-00288-RWT-1)

Submitted:

June 10, 2009

Decided:

July 10, 2009

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary A. Ticknor, Elkridge, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michele W. Sartori, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Marvin Wayne Williams appeals the district court's

pretrial denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his home pursuant to a search warrant based upon probable cause stemming statement from he a traffic to guilty stop, an to and his motion to suppress a

made pled a

arresting

officer. of

Williams and

subsequently ammunition by

possession in

firearms of 18

convicted

felon,

violation

U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1) (2006), and possessing with the intent to distribute 50 grams of more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) imprisonment. (2006), and was to sentenced suppress to the 151 months' upon

Williams

moved

evidence

which the indictment was based, arguing that his vehicle was stopped and searched without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, leading to the discovery of narcotics on his person that was used to prove probable cause in obtaining a warrant to

search his home. evidence seized

Alternatively, Williams moved to suppress the from his home based upon arguments that the

affidavit used to obtain the search warrant "did not establish probable cause to believe evidence of a crime would be found" and "was so deficient that no objectively reasonable officer would have relied in good faith on the legality of the search warrant." Williams also moved to suppress an incriminating

statement he made to the police officers who arrested him after 2

searching

his

home,

to

the

effect

that

all

the

evidence

of

illegal activity found at the home belonged to him, rather than to his girlfriend, who was present during the search, after the officers stated their intent to arrest her as well. He argued

that his statement resulted from an unreasonable seizure and was coerced and obtained in violation of his Miranda * rights. affirm the district court's denial of the motions to suppress. We review the district court's factual findings We

underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). United States v. Grossman, When a suppression motion

has been denied, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d

I. Motion to Suppress Evidence "As a general matter, the decision to stop an

automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred," regardless of the officer's subjective motivations. Whren v. United States, "[O]nly criminal

517 U.S. 806, 810, 813-19 (1996) (citations omitted). the probability,
*

and

not

a

prima

facie

showing,

of

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

3

activity is the standard of probable cause."

Illinois v. Gates,

462 U.S. 213, 235 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We hold that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized from Williams' home based upon lack of probable cause for the traffic stop that led to issuance of the search warrant. The evidence, including a

video recording of the stop and the events leading up to it taken from the arresting several officer's vehicle, and shows actual that the

officer

observed

potential

traffic

violations, including possible illegal window tint, a possible illegal windshield obstruction, failure to stop at a red light, and failure to signal a right turn, before he pulled Williams over. The fact that Williams was not ultimately charged with

illegal window tint or having an obstructed windshield does not conclusively indicate that the officer did not observe probable violations of those that types. Williams In addition, to the or video evidence before

clearly shows

failed

stop

signal

turning right at a red light.

Because the stop was based upon

probable cause, the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant was not deficient.

4

II. Motion to Suppress Statement A statement is voluntary if it is "the product of an essentially Schneckloth free v. and unconstrained 412 U.S. choice 218, by 225 its maker." An

Bustamonte,

(1973).

analysis of the voluntariness of a statement is derived from the totality of the circumstances. Id. at is 226. The relevant

determination

regarding

voluntariness

whether

government

agents have overborne the defendant's will or left his "capacity for self-determination critically impaired." Id. at 225.

We hold that the district court did not err in denying Williams' motion to suppress the statement he made to the

arresting officers because the statement was made voluntarily. The testimony of one of the arresting officers indicates that Williams was not questioned during the search of his apartment, and that he voluntarily stated that all of the evidence found at the apartment was his after the officer told the other officers to arrest Williams' girlfriend. The evidence does not indicate

that the officer threatened to arrest Williams' girlfriend in order to elicit any sort of admission from Williams, but rather that he ordered her arrest as a logical result of her presence at the apartment where a large quantity of cocaine base was discovered. Furthermore, as discussed above, the statement was

not made in the context of an illegal search.

5

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district court's dispense order with denying oral Williams' motions the to suppress. and We legal

argument

because

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6