USA v. Undra Davi
OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Alice M. Batchelder, Chief Circuit Judge; Eugene E. Siler , Jr. and Eric L. Clay, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0548n.06
Case No. 13-5374
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Jul 23, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; SILER and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Defendant-appellant Undra Davis appeals
the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
Officer Jeremy Huddleston was on routine patrol at about 3:30 in the morning when he saw
a black SUV speed past with two men in it. The officer got a good look at the driver, who looked
directly at him, but when Officer Huddleston activated his lights to make a traffic stop, the SUV
sped away at such a speed that Officer Huddleston discontinued pursuit for safety reasons.
Acting on a Ahunch@ by a sergeant at the station, Officer Huddleston drove to Salem Road,
where he recognized the SUV, which was backed into a driveway with the dome light on such that
he could see two men inside. Officer Huddleston recognized the driver, who turned out to be
Davis. When Davis fled the car on foot, towards the house, Officer Huddleston pursued and
ordered him to stop.
Davis continued to the doorway and attempted to enter, so Officer
Huddleston tased him and then arrested him. During the arrest, Officer Huddleston and another
13-5374, USA v. Undra Davis
officer observed drugs and weapons in plain sight. This probable cause led to a search warrant,
which led to discovery of more drugs and weapons, which led to an indictment on drug and
weapon charges. Davis moved to suppress the incriminating evidence on the grounds that the
tasing was an unlawful seizure.
At the suppression hearing, Officer Huddleston testified that he first observed Davis
driving the speeding SUV and then recognized both the SUV and Davis when he arrived at the
Salem Road address. Although the initial traffic stop was for speeding, the ensuing pursuit and
seizure were for felony evading arrest. Defense counsel argued at the hearing and again to the
magistrate judge in post-hearing briefing that Officer Huddleston=s testimony was not worthy of
belief. The magistrate judge, however, believed Officer Huddleston and recommended that the
district court deny the motion.
Defense counsel objected to the recommendation and argued to the district court that
Officer Huddleston’s testimony was not worthy of belief. The district court reconsidered Davis’s
arguments de novo, but it too believed Officer Huddleston and denied the motion to suppress.
Davis entered a guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress. That appeal is before us here and Davis raises the same argument he raised to
the district court C that Officer Huddleston’s testimony is not worthy of belief C and argues that
the district court clearly erred in believing it.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual
findings for clear error, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
United States v. Woods, 711 F.3d 737, 740 (6th Cir. 2013). Here, the evidence fully supports the
13-5374, USA v. Undra Davis
district court’s findings that Officer Huddleston recognized both the SUV and the driver, Davis.
Consequently, the district court did not err by finding Officer Huddleston credible and relying on
that testimony. The district court properly denied Davis’s motion to suppress.
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?