USCA11 Case: 22-11581 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-11581
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTWAN GOSS,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60175-WPD-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11581 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 22-11581
Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Antwan Goss appeals his conviction for being a felon in pos-
session of a firearm in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal,
Goss asserts (1) that the district court clearly erred when it denied
his motion to suppress evidence because, according to him, the po-
lice officers who testified against him were not credible; (2) that, as
a result, the officers had no factual basis for reasonably suspecting
that he was armed and dangerous for purposes of conducting a pat-
down search; and (3) that his firearm would not have been inevita-
bly discovered because his warrants were non-extraditable. After
careful review, we affirm.
The facts are known to the parties, and we repeat them here
only as necessary to decide the case.
* * *
“Because rulings on motions to suppress evidence present
mixed questions of law and fact, we review the district court’s fac-
tual findings for clear error and its application of the law to the facts
de novo.” United States v. Lewis,
674 F.3d 1298, 1302–03 (11th Cir.
2012) (internal quotations omitted). The facts are construed in fa-
vor of the party that prevailed below, and we afford substantial def-
erence to the factfinder’s explicit and implicit credibility determina-
tions.
Id. at 1303 (citing United States v. McPhee,
366 F.3d 1269, 1275
(11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Floyd,
281 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.
USCA11 Case: 22-11581 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 3 of 6
22-11581 Opinion of the Court 3
2002) (per curiam)). We accept the district court’s credibility deter-
mination “unless it is contrary to the laws of nature, or is so incon-
sistent or improbable on its face that no reasonable factfinder could
accept it.” United States v. Holt,
777 F.3d 1234, 1255 (11th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotations omitted). “Where there are two permissible
views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot
be clearly erroneous.” United States v. McPhee,
336 F.3d 1269, 1275
(11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). We have also held
that where two police officers recall an incident differently, it is not
clear error for the factfinder to credit one officer’s testimony over
the other. See United States v. Stancil,
4 F.4th 1193, 1199 (11th Cir.
2021) (holding that a magistrate judge was not clearly erroneous in
crediting officers’ testimony despite inconsistencies regarding their
positions relative to the defendant’s car), cert. denied,
142 S. Ct. 511
(2021); see also United States v. White,
593 F.3d 1199, 1203 (11th Cir.
2010) (holding that it was not clearly erroneous to credit an officer
who remembered the smell of marijuana when another officer did
not recall the smell).
The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no [w]arrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. A police officer may lawfully conduct a traffic
stop without a warrant if he has reasonable suspicion that the per-
son has participated in or is about to participate in criminal activity,
which includes minor traffic violations. United States v. Campbell,
26
F.4th 860, 880 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (citing United States v.
USCA11 Case: 22-11581 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 22-11581
Chanthasouxat,
342 F.3d 1271, 1277 (11th Cir. 2003); Holeman v. City
of New London,
425 F.3d 184, 189–90 (2d Cir. 2005)), cert. denied,
143
S. Ct. 95 (2022).
An officer may order occupants out of a vehicle during a
lawful traffic stop and conduct a limited search of an occupant’s
outer clothing for weapons “[i]f the officer has a reasonable suspi-
cion that the person may be armed and dangerous.” United States
v. Bishop,
940 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Arizona v. John-
son,
555 U.S. 323, 327 (2009)). Reasonable suspicion exists when “a
reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted
in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.”
Id.
(internal quotations omitted). “To determine whether a suspicion
was reasonable, we evaluate the totality of the circumstances sur-
rounding the stop, including the collective knowledge of all officers
involved in the stop.” Id. at 1249. An individual’s nervousness and
criminal record are two factors that may contribute to reasonable
suspicion. Id. at 1249. Another relevant factor is whether the in-
vestigation takes place “in a high crime area.” Lewis,
674 F.3d at
1309 (citing Illinois v. Wardlow,
528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000); United States
v. Gordon,
231 F.3d 750, 755–56 (11th Cir. 2000)).
Generally, evidence obtained by unconstitutional means is
inadmissible because it is “the fruit of the poisonous tree.” Cf.
Wong Sun v. United States,
371 U.S. 471, 484 (1963). But where the
evidence “inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means,”
this exclusionary rule doesn’t apply. Nix v. Williams,
467 U.S. 431,
444 (1984).
USCA11 Case: 22-11581 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 5 of 6
22-11581 Opinion of the Court 5
Here, the district court did not err in denying Goss’s motion
to suppress. See Lewis,
674 F.3d at 1302–03. First, the district court’s
factual findings were based on its determination that O’Hara and
Ventura—the arresting officers here—were credible, and there is
nothing in the record to warrant reversal of that credibility finding.
See Holt,
777 F.3d at 1255. Moreover, their testimony presented
“two permissible views of the evidence,” such that the district
court’s “choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”
McPhee,
336 F.3d at 1275 (internal quotations omitted).
Any discrepancies between O’Hara’s and Ventura’s testi-
mony relate to a rapidly evolving interaction that lasted “mere
minutes.” In this context, such inconsistencies do not overcome
the “substantial deference” afforded to the district court’s credibil-
ity determinations. Lewis,
674 F.3d at 1303 (citing McPhee, 366 F.3d
at 1275; Floyd,
281 F.3d at 1349). The district court’s resolutions of
purported discrepancies here were not “contrary to the laws of na-
ture” or “so inconsistent or improbable” that no reasonable fact-
finder could accept the testimony. Holt,
777 F.3d at 1255 (internal
quotations omitted). To be sure, Goss’ girlfriend, Qwanesia Mitch-
ell—who was on the phone with Goss for a majority of the traffic
stop—presented an alternate, credible perspective. But her testi-
mony as to what she heard on the phone does not invalidate
O’Hara’s and Ventura’s testimony regarding their visual observa-
tions of Goss’s nervous behavior. McPhee,
336 F.3d at 1275.
Second, the district court did not clearly err in concluding
that “a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be
USCA11 Case: 22-11581 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 22-11581
warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in dan-
ger.” Bishop, 940 F.3d at 1248 (internal quotations omitted The
court credited O’Hara’s testimony that Goss consented to the re-
quest to lift his shirt. Accordingly, once O’Hara saw the bulge in
Goss’s waistband, it was reasonable to suspect that Goss was armed
and dangerous, and a pat-down search was therefore justified.
Bishop, 940 F.3d at 1248 (citing Johnson,
555 U.S. at 327). The dis-
trict court also correctly determined, in the alternative, that even if
the pat-down search was not consensual, it would have been justi-
fied because Goss was stopped in a high-crime area, appeared nerv-
ous, and had a criminal history. Lewis,
674 F.3d at 1309 (citing Ward-
low,
528 U.S. at 124; Gordon, 231 F.3d at 56)); Bishop, 940 F.3d at 1249.
Third and finally, we needn’t reach the question whether the
firearm would have inevitably been discovered; because there was
no Fourth Amendment violation, the exclusionary rule does not
apply. See Wong Sun,
371 U.S. at 488; Williams,
467 U.S. 431, 444
(1984).
For these reasons, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
