U.S. v. Goddard, No. 02-10962.

• Decision Date: 29 November 2002
• Docket Number: No. 02-10962.
• Citation: 312 F.3d 1360
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight Anthony GODDARD, a.k.a. Tony, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1360

312 F.3d 1360

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwight Anthony GODDARD, a.k.a. Tony, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10962.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

November 29, 2002.

Michael Lee Chidester, Law Offices of Michael L. Chidester, P.A., Byron, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Charles L. Calhoun, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Before CARNES, HILL and FARRIS,^* Circuit Judges.

FARRIS, Circuit Judge:

After the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence, defendant Dwight Anthony Goddard entered a conditional plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Goddard appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm. There was probable cause to search Goddard's person incident to a lawful, warrantless arrest made in a public place.

I

On October 26, 2000, Officer Bob Williams of the Ocmulgee Drug Task Force received information from a confidential informant that Goddard was selling crack cocaine from the trunk of a burgundy Oldsmobile in the Harrisburg area of Milledgeville, Georgia. Officer Williams was already familiar with the defendant and his vehicle. Since Officer Williams was involved in a separate investigation at the time he received the informant's eyewitness account, he passed this information on to Deputy Harold Hurley of the Baldwin County Sheriff's Department.

Deputy Hurley proceeded immediately to the Harrisburg area to investigate. A year beforehand, Deputy Hurley had supervised a confidential informant who had purchased crack cocaine from Goddard. He therefore called the Sheriff's Office to verify that the Dwight Anthony Goddard to whom Officer Williams referred was the same person who had sold crack to that informant. An officer verified this fact. The officer also said that, several days earlier, he had stopped the defendant in a burgundy car that matched the description of the vehicle reportedly being used to sell crack. As further confirmation, Deputy Hurley called a state probation officer who informed him that Goddard was on probation for a drug offense.

Approximately thirty minutes after the original tip had been called in by the confidential informant, Deputy Hurley arrived at the car wash purportedly owned by the defendant. Goddard was sitting outside in the company of several other men. When Deputy Hurley asked to speak with Goddard, the defendant identified himself, and then got up holding a crowbar in his hand. Deputy Hurley assured Goddard that he wouldn't need the crow bar and removed it from his hand. Deputy Hurley explained that he had received information that Goddard was in possession of a substantial amount of crack cocaine. Deputy Hurley then said that he was going to search Goddard and his car to see if there were any drugs. He told Goddard that if he had any drugs, he should say so.

At this point, Goddard's head dropped, he started breathing heavily, and he said that, yes, he did have crack in his possession. After Deputy Hurley asked where it was, Goddard reached for the zipper of his top right pocket. Based on his fear that Goddard might have a weapon, Deputy Hurley advised Goddard that he would retrieve the drugs. Deputy Hurley then unzipped Goddard's pocket and pulled out a brown paper sack, which contained 93 pieces of crack cocaine.

Goddard moved to suppress the drugs taken from his pocket as the fruit of an improper, warrantless search. After holding a suppression hearing, the district court denied the motion because (1) no search had taken place since Goddard had voluntarily surrendered the drugs, and (2) even if a search had taken place, it had been supported by an exception to the warrant requirement for exigent circumstances. Goddard then entered a conditional plea of guilty.

II

In reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we review factual findings for clear error and the court's application of law to those facts de novo. See United States v. Gordon, 231 F.3d 750, 753-54 (11th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1200, 121 S.Ct. 1207, 149 L.Ed.2d 121 (2001). The facts are construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. See id.

Goddard contends that the district court clearly erred because (1) he was unlawfully seized, which tainted any consent to his subsequent search, and (2) no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search of his person. His assertions are, however, premised on home search cases entirely. Here, the search was of a person in a public location incident to arrest, supported by probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and further provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." U.S. Const. amend. IV. This does not mean, as the defendant proposes, that all searches and seizures require the issuance of a warrant. "[O]ur Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has consistently accorded law enforcement officials greater latitude in exercising their duties in public places. For example, although a warrant presumptively is required for a felony arrest in a suspect's home, the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrests in public places where an officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has occurred." Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 565, 119 S.Ct. 1555, 143 L.Ed.2d 748 (1999). In explaining this rule, the Supreme Court has drawn upon the established "distinction between a warrantless seizure in an open area and such a seizure on private premises." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 587, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). "It is a `basic principle of Fourth Amendment law' that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." Id. at 586, 100 S.Ct. 1371 (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Burgos, 720 F.2d 1520, 1525 (11th Cir.1983). It is equally well-established that "there is nothing in [our] prior cases indicating that under the Fourth Amendment a warrant is required to make a valid arrest for a felony." United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 416-17, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976); see, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 71 F.3d 819, 826-27 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Valdes, 876 F.2d 1554, 1559 (11th Cir.1989). The Watson Court summarized as follows:

Law enforcement officers may find it wise to seek arrest warrants where practicable to do so, and their judgments about probable cause may be more readily accepted where backed by a warrant issued by a magistrate. But we decline to transform this judicial preference into a constitutional rule when the judgment of the Nation and Congress has for so long been to authorize warrantless public arrests on probable cause rather than encumber criminal prosecutions with endless litigation with respect to the existence of exigent circumstances, whether it was practicable to get a warrant, whether the suspect was about to flee, and the like.

Watson, 423 U.S. at 423-24, 96 S.Ct. 820 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Costa, 691 F.2d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir.1982); cf. Durden v. State, 250 Ga. 325, 297 S.E.2d 237, 240 (1982) (holding that arrests and searches, legal under federal law, are legal under state law).

The search of Goddard occurred in a public place and was supported by probable cause. There is no need to examine whether exigent circumstances also justified the issuance of a warrant. First, there is no question that the encounter between Goddard and Deputy Hurley occurred in a public place: in the parking lot of a car wash, outdoors, and in full view of others. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Thus, though the threshold of a person's residence is considered under the common law to be "private" property, the same location is a "public" place where the person is exposed to public view, speech, hearing, and touch as if he had been standing completely outside of his house. See United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42, 96 S.Ct. 2406, 49 L.Ed.2d 300 (1976).

Second, there is also no question that the search of Goddard was supported by probable cause. Probable cause for a search exists when under the totality of...