United States v. Williams, 14–1751.
| Decision Date | 05 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–1751.,14–1751. |
| Citation | 777 F.3d 1013 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Henry Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Anita L. Burns, Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, argued (Laine Cardarella, Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant.
Justin G. Davids, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, argued (Tammy Dickinson, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BYE, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Henry Williams was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count I); possessing a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (Count II); and stealing a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(u) (Count III). Williams moved to suppress the AK–47 rifle seized during a warrantless search of his vehicle. After the district court 1 denied his motion to suppress, Williams entered a conditional guilty plea to Counts I and III of the Indictment and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. Pursuant to his conditional plea agreement, Williams appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
On December 19, 2012, Officer Alan Loftis of the Raytown, Missouri, Police Department received a report of a theft at Game Stop, an electronics retailer. Being less than a block away, he responded immediately to the call. As he was pulling into the parking lot of the store, there were two people pointing at a dark-colored Cadillac. Officer Loftis pursued the car, which did not stop until the siren of the patrol car had been activated. During the pursuit, radio dispatch informed Officer Loftis that the suspect was wearing a Pittsburgh Steelers jacket and had stolen an iPad wrapped in bubble wrap.
Officer Loftis pulled the Cadillac over to the side of the street and when he approached the car, he noticed that the driver was wearing a Steelers jacket. The driver, Williams, initially refused to exit the car and asked why he had been stopped. A second officer arrived at the scene, and together they again asked Williams to get out of his vehicle. Williams eventually obeyed and locked the doors behind him after exiting.
In response to questioning, Williams denied any knowledge of, or involvement in, the Game Stop theft, though he admitted he had recently been at the store. The rear driver's side window of the car was partially down, and Officer Loftis looked into the car using a flashlight. He noticed some bubble wrap sticking out in the console area between the two front seats. After unlocking the car through the open window, the officer removed the bubble-wrapped item, which turned out to be the stolen iPad.
Officer Loftis took the iPad to the rear of the vehicle, laid it on the trunk, and told Williams that he was under arrest. At that moment, Williams reached out and grabbed the iPad, tucking it under his chest as he leaned over the car. Williams refused verbal commands and resisted the officers' attempts to handcuff him. The officers then used physical force, including knee strikes, to force Williams to give up the iPad and to place him in handcuffs. A third officer drove past the scene of the arrest with the Game Stop manager in his patrol car. The manager identified Williams as the man who stole the iPad.
Officer Loftis then ordered Williams's car to be towed. The Raytown Police Department Tow Policy on “Custodial Arrest” provides: (Emphasis added). If an officer decides not to have the vehicle towed, “the officer may release the vehicle to another licensed driver at the scene with the owner/operators [sic] approval, or shall complete an “AUTHORIZATION NOT TO TOW” form to be signed by the owner/operator prior to the vehicle being legally parked and locked near the scene of the arrest.” Further, “[v]ehicles will not be towed as a punitive action.”
Officer Loftis later provided several explanations for his determination that Williams's car should be towed. Because they were in a “high crime” area, he “didn't want to leave a Cadillac on the side of the road regardless of condition.” The officer also explained that Raytown requires a $500 bond for theft, so Williams may not have been out of jail to retrieve the car for some time. As Williams had just resisted arrest, the officer did not want to release him from handcuffs again to sign an “authorization not to tow” form. Williams was alone, and he was the only registered owner of the car, so there was no other “licensed driver at the scene” to whom the vehicle could be released. The officer testified at the suppression hearing that he did not have the car towed as a punitive action, nor was he expecting to find additional evidence:
After a tow truck had been ordered, the officers at the scene began to inventory the vehicle, pursuant to department policy. In the trunk of the car, Officer Scott Gillespie discovered a duffel bag that contained a loaded AK–47 rifle. A run of the serial numbers revealed that the firearm had been stolen. Williams later admitted in a written statement, provided after he had been read the Miranda warnings, that he had stolen the firearm.
The Raytown Police Department Tow Policy requires an inventory of the contents of a towed vehicle. Items of value are to be placed in the station property room, while Officer Loftis later testified that there may have been loose items left in the vehicle that were not listed in the Tow–In report inventory list. He explained that it was typical for him not to list items of lower value.
Williams moved to suppress evidence of the rifle, arguing that the warrantless search of his vehicle violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. Following a hearing, the district court denied his motion and Williams now appeals.
A mixed standard of review applies to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence. “We review the district court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, and the ultimate conclusion of whether the Fourth Amendment was violated is subject to de novo review.” United States v. Stephenson, 924 F.2d 753, 758 (8th Cir.1991).
On appeal, Williams does not contest that officers had probable...
To continue reading
Request your trial