United States v. Santiago, 091809 FED4, 07-5094
|Opinion Judge:||MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LANNIKKO SANTIAGO, Defendant - Appellant.|
|Attorney:||James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Martin G. Bahl, Staff Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael C. Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||September 18, 2009|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|
Submitted: August 21, 2009
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00570-WDQ-1)
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Lannikko Santiago appeals his jury conviction and sentence on charges of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006) (Count One), and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) (2006) (Count Two). The district court sentenced Santiago to 120 months' imprisonment on Count One and 60 months' imprisonment on Count Two, to run concurrent with Count One, for a total term of 12 0 months, and imposed a three-year term of supervised release as to Counts One and Two, to run concurrently with each other. Santiago claims three errors on appeal. First, he challenges the district court's denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress the firearm on the ground that the traffic stop was invalid. Second, he claims error by the district court in allowing the admission at trial of evidence of his gang membership. Finally, Santiago challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction on Count Two. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The basis for Santiago's Fourth Amendment challenge to the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the firearm found in plain view in the backseat of the vehicle in which Santiago was a passenger is his assertion that police officers did not have probable cause to stop the vehicle. This court reviews legal conclusions underlying the denial of a motion to suppress de novo, and factual findings for clear error. United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 429 (4th Cir. 2006).
In his statement of probable cause, one of the three arresting police officers, Detective Dennis Workley, stated that the three officers observed the Crown Victoria "drive through Montford and Preston Streets at a slow rate of speed." He further stated, "The vehicle then traveled eastbound and rolled through the stop sign at Preston and Port Street. The vehicle then made a right hand turn into the 1200 block of N. Milton Ave., traveling southbound." The police subsequently conducted a traffic stop of the vehicle, based on the stop sign violation, which stop and search resulted in the discovery of the firearm at issue.
At the suppression hearing, Detective Workley testified that he and officers Louis Holley and Lamont Davis noticed a Crown Victoria driving at an unusually slow rate of speed north on Montford Street. The officers followed the car and witnessed it make a number of turns around the neighborhood. After detailing the route taken by the Crown Victoria, Detective Workley testified that he saw the car make a "rolling stop" through the stop sign at the Port Street/Preston Street intersection before continuing on to Milton.
Santiago claimed that the statement of probable...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP