United States v. Morrison , 58 F. App'x 381 ( 2003 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 10 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 02-1136
v.
D.C. No. 01-CR-277-N
(D. Colorado)
JOSEPH ROY MORRISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, LUCERO and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Roy Morrison appeals his conviction of being a felon in possession
of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district
court should have suppressed evidence introduced against him because it was the
product of various Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. Because we find that
no constitutional violations were committed during Morrison’s investigation and
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
arrest, we exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and AFFIRM his
conviction.
I. FACTS 1
On the evening of June 21, 2001, Chaffee County Sheriff’s Deputy Mike
Browett observed two cars parked on the northbound shoulder of Highway 285,
south of Nathrop, Colorado. As he drove by, he noticed two men standing outside
these cars, one of whom appeared to be waving the deputy down. Deputy Browett
made a u-turn, pulled in behind the cars and addressed the man who had flagged
him down—William Boyd.
Boyd informed Deputy Browett that the other driver (the defendant Joseph
Morrison) was speeding and driving recklessly. Boyd told Browett that after
Morrison had passed Boyd in his car, they both pulled off the highway. They
began to have an argument and Morrison hit Boyd in the chest and chin.
Morrison then brandished a pipe device and asked Boyd if he wanted Morrison to
“blow his head off.”
As Boyd related these details to Deputy Browett, Morrison drove away.
Intending to further investigate the alleged traffic violations and menacing
1
Unless otherwise noted, these facts are taken from the district court’s oral
findings of fact at the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. (9/13/01 Hrg.
Tr. at 62-69.)
-2-
behavior, Deputy Browett decided to follow Morrison and instructed Boyd to
follow in his own car.
Browett pulled Morrison over and ran a routine check of his license,
registration, and insurance, which revealed nothing unusual. Browett informed
Morrison that he wanted to talk further with both him and Boyd to determine what
happened during the altercation.
Boyd then reported that Morrison, who was speeding, had tailgated and
then passed him over a double yellow line. Boyd then attempted to pass
Morrison, who swerved, running Boyd off the highway. They then exchanged
obscene gestures and Boyd pulled over, followed by Morrison. As Morrison
approached him, Boyd took out a metal fly rod case to protect himself. An
argument ensued; Morrison hit Boyd in the chin and chest, pushed Boyd, pulled
out the pipe device and threatened to “blow his head off.”
Browett and a back-up officer, Deputy Vidmar, then approached Morrison’s
car to question him. Morrison claimed he had no weapons except a pocket knife,
which he gave to the officers, and denied pointing anything at Boyd’s head.
Browett then conducted a protective pat-down and discovered a .308 caliber bullet
in Morrison’s pocket, which Morrison explained was his good luck charm.
During this interview, Browett detected the smell of alcohol on Morrison’s breath.
-3-
Browett asked Morrison if he had anything illegal in his car. Morrison
denied having anything illegal and permitted Browett to search the car. Browett
recovered the pipe device, which he thought might be drug paraphernalia, as well
as a butterfly knife. Morrison told Browett the device was something he had put
together because he was bored.
Browett showed the device to Boyd, who confirmed that it was the object
Morrison used to threaten him. Upon closer examination, Browett realized that
the pipe was a loaded makeshift firearm known as a “zip gun” and arrested
Morrison for possession of an illegal weapon and felony menacing. Fearing that
it would discharge, Browett placed the zip gun on the ground and summoned a
more experienced police officer to help him disarm it. (ROA 2 at 26.) In
response to that officer’s question, Morrison said that the gun could be unscrewed
and dismantled.
Browett then took Morrison to the Sheriff’s office. On the way there,
Morrison made several lewd suggestions and offensive remarks to Browett. A
test revealed Morrison’s blood alcohol level to be .047.
Prior to trial, Morrison moved to suppress the .308 caliber bullet and other
evidence obtained from his car as well as several of the statements he made
during the investigation. The district court denied his motion, and a jury
convicted Morrison of being a felon in possession of ammunition.
-4-
We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo; however, the district
court’s factual findings are only reviewed for clear error, viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Treto-Haro, 287
F.3d 1000, 1002 (10th Cir. 2002).
II. FOURTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS
Morrison argues that the seized bullet and “zip gun” should have been
suppressed as the products of an illegal search and seizure. He first claims that
Deputy Browett lacked the reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain him
as required by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20 (1968). To justify the seizure of
a person, the “police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts
which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably
warrant that intrusion.” Id. at 21.
We agree with the district court that Deputy Browett did have reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity to detain Morrison. He had been flagged down by a
citizen and given facts that would support several violations of state law.
Although Browett did not witness any hostile activity or weapons, we find that
Boyd’s statement was sufficiently detailed, reliable, and consistent with his
waving the deputy down to justify the Terry stop. United States v. Hishaw, 235
F.3d 565, 570 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven ambiguous behavior, susceptible to an
-5-
innocent interpretation, may give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity depending on the totality of the circumstances.”) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). The resulting detention lasted only long enough for Browett to
investigate Boyd’s claims and thus did not violate Morrison’s Fourth Amendment
rights.
Morrison next argues that 1) Browett did not have a reasonable suspicion
that criminal activity was afoot or that Morrison might be armed and dangerous,
such that a protective pat-down was justified, and 2) that even if Browett did have
reasonable suspicion, he exceeded the scope of the permissible pat-down by
reaching into Morrison’s pocket to recover the bullet.
A police officer may pat down a detainee when the “officer is justified in
believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at
close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others.” Terry,
392 U.S. at 24. Although Morrison maintains that his conduct provided no
reasonable basis for Deputy Browett to fear that Morrison was potentially armed
and dangerous, we have no trouble affirming the district court’s contrary
conclusion. Although Morrison had not behaved in a hostile or violent way,
Browett had just been informed by a distressed motorist that Morrison had
threatened to blow his head off with some kind of weapon. Furthermore,
Morrison himself had revealed that during the violent confrontation with Boyd, he
-6-
had been holding a knife. (ROA 2 at 18.) These facts warrant Browett’s pat-
down of Morrison. See Hishaw, 235 F.3d at 570 (officers’ reasonable suspicion
that defendant was dealing drugs was alone sufficient to permit a protective pat-
down).
In conducting the pat down, Deputy Browett encountered a long, cylindrical
metal object in Morrison’s pocket. (ROA 2 at 20.) “A search for weapons in the
absence of probable cause to arrest . . . must, like any other search, be strictly
circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.” Terry, 392 U.S. at
25-26. Morrison contends that by just feeling the object, Browett could not have
surmised that it was a weapon; thus, Browett exceeded the permissible scope of
the pat-down. We disagree. Deputy Browett testified that he thought the object
might be another knife. Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 (“The officer need not be
absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably
prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety
or that of others was in danger.”). Browett’s suspicion was not unreasonable, and
he was justified in removing the bullet from Morrison’s pocket.
Morrison finally objects to the search of his car, which revealed the second
knife and the zip gun. The district court’s finding that Morrison consented to the
search of his car is not clearly erroneous. There is no evidence that Morrison was
under any duress or coercion, and Deputy Browett testified that Morrison
-7-
manifested clear and unequivocal consent for Browett to search the car. United
States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 967 (10th Cir. 1996).
Because we find that the police officers committed no Fourth Amendment
violations in their investigation and arrest of Morrison, we affirm the district
court’s denial of Morrison’s motion to suppress this physical evidence.
III. FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIMS
Morrison contests the introduction of the following four statements during
his jury trial: 1) his denial that he had pointed anything at Boyd’s head; 2) his
admission that he held a knife during the confrontation with Boyd; 3) his
characterization of the .308 caliber bullet in his pocket as a “good luck charm”; 4)
his explanation to Browett that the zip gun was something he put together because
he was bored; and 5) his explanation that the zip gun could be unscrewed.
Morrison argues that because he never received Miranda warnings these
statements were obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The district court found that the statements were not suppressible.
Reviewing the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal
conclusions de novo, United States v. Hudson, 210 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir.
2000), we affirm its denial of Morrison’s motion to suppress these statements.
-8-
Miranda warnings are only required when a defendant is in custody.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 429 (1984). A defendant is not in custody
for Miranda purposes unless his “freedom of action is curtailed to a degree
associated with formal arrest.” Id. at 440 (internal quotations and citations
omitted). In this case, Morrison was not in custody when the first four statements
were made. Deputy Browett had indicated to Morrison that he was merely trying
to understand what had happened during the altercation between Boyd and
Morrison. He did not physically restrain Morrison, use a weapon, or use a
threatening tone of voice. Thus, Morrison was not in custody, and Miranda did
not apply to his first four statements.
The final statement regarding the dismantling of the zip gun was made after
Morrison was placed under arrest; however, it was clearly obtained only for the
purpose of protecting the officers. A loaded makeshift firearm in the immediate
vicinity of police officers and the public certainly poses the threat to public safety
that permits questioning of a defendant in custody, even in the absence of
Miranda warnings, about how to remove the immediate safety hazard that the
home-made gun could accidentally discharge. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S.
649, 655-56 (1984).
-9-
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the district court correctly denied
Morrison’s motion to suppress and AFFIRM its judgment.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
- 10 -