USA v. Lloyd Barmore
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-30655 Affirmed] Judge: WED, Judge: FPB, Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 03/13/2017 for Appellant Lloyd E. Barmore [16-30655]
Date Filed: 02/20/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
February 20, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
LLOYD E. BARMORE,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:14-CR-166-1
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Lloyd E. Barmore pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine
with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment
and 5 years of supervised release. He reserved the right to appeal the district
court’s denial of his motion to suppress. In the context of the denial of a
suppression motion, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Date Filed: 02/20/2017
error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420
F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2005).
Barmore argues that the facts and circumstances surrounding his arrest
did not justify a warrantless search of his truck because they did not give rise
to probable cause to believe that the truck contained contraband. “It is well
settled that probable cause to search an automobile exists when trustworthy
facts and circumstances within the officer’s personal knowledge would cause a
reasonably prudent man to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.”
United States v. Edwards, 577 F.2d 883, 895 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc).
Barmore’s attempt to conceal the drug pipe would have allowed a reasonably
prudent man to believe that there were other items of contraband related to
illegal drug activity in the truck. Viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government and considering the totality of the circumstances,
we conclude that there was probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of
the vehicle. See United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562, 574 (5th Cir. 2008).
Because probable cause existed to search Barmore’s vehicle, we need not
address the validity of the inventory search of the vehicle.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?