U.S. v. Williams, 95-40296
| Decision Date | 06 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-40296,95-40296 |
| Citation | 69 F.3d 27 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Edward WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Mike Bradford, U.S. Attorney, Tyler, TX, Mary Ann Cozby, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Tyler, TX, for plaintiff-appellee.
T.J. Baynham, Jr., Tyler, TX, for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Frank Edward Williams appeals from the district court's judgment of conviction, after entry of a conditional guilty plea, for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress, by increasing his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense, by failing to reduce his base offense level under Sec. 3B1.2 for minor/minimal participant status, and that Sec. 2D1.1 is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment as racially discriminatory. Finding that the district court committed no error and that Williams' contentions are unavailing, we affirm.
One point is worth some discussion. Williams' sole challenge to the propriety of the district court's denial of his motion to suppress is whether a dog sniff can "establish probable cause in a warrantless search without showing evidence of the dog's training and reliability." The following facts, as found by the district court, are uncontested and bear on this challenge. A vehicle driven by codefendant Frank Edward Williams was stopped for a traffic violation by DPS Trooper Washington and his partner. Codefendant Danyell Deoncore Waters was a passenger. After initiating background checks on the car and its occupants, Washington observed what he thought were metallic shavings, commonly used in the consumption of crack, on the front floorboard. He then obtained consent (as found by the district court and not challenged on appeal) and noticed during a search of the trunk that apparently the rear seat had been removed. Suspicions aroused by these and other circumstances (including dealer tags on a seven-year-old car and a patchy paint job of questionable quality), Washington called for a canine unit; the canine alerted after sniffing around the right rear quarter panel. The officers then searched the quarter panel and found crack and a firearm. Williams and Waters were arrested.
Williams filed a motion to suppress in the district court contesting the search and seizure of the automobile he was driving which yielded cocaine base. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress, holding that the traffic stop was legal, the length of the investigatory stop was not improper, the search of the car's trunk was consensual, and that the "dog sniff" was based on a "reasonable, articulable suspicion.
The district court specifically held that "probable cause for a search [of the car's trunk] did not exist" before the dog sniff. Williams argued, in the district court, that "the training and reliability of a drug dog prior to reliance on a sniff test [is required] to justify a warrantless search." The district court, noting that this court had not addressed the precise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nguyen
...39 Id. 40 Id., 102 Ohio App.3d 585, 657 N.E.2d 591, at fn. 6. 41 Id. See, also, Alexander, 2003-Ohio-760, at ¶ 56. 42 United States v. Williams (C.A.5, 1995), 69 F.3d 27. 43 United States v. Diaz (C.A.6, 1994), 25 F.3d 392. 44 United States v. Owens (C.A.1, 1999), 167 F.3d 739, 749-750; Uni......
-
State v. Adam Ennedy
... ... 584-585. Factual findings by the court are to be accepted by ... us unless they are "clearly erroneous." State ... v. Long (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 328, 332, ... attempt to obtain additional information. See Adams v ... Williams (1972), 407 U.S. 140, 146, 32 L.Ed.2d 612, 617, ... 92 S.Ct. 1921; State v. Bobo (1988), ... ...
-
State v. Jackson
...tip generated reasonable suspicion where informant was known to officer and had supplied information in past).32 United States v. Williams, 69 F.3d 27, 28 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1284, 134 L.Ed.2d 229 (1996); United States v. Diaz, 25 F.3d 392, 394 (6th Cir.19......
-
Fitzgerald v. State
...with probable cause to search the car."). The federal case law is in line with Maryland's position. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 69 F.3d 27, 28 (5th Cir.1995) ("The fact that the dog alerted provided probable cause to search."); United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102, 1107 (5th Cir.......