United States v. Byrd , 113 F. App'x 602 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30381
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARVIN L. BYRD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CR-101-1
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Marvin L. Byrd appeals his conviction, after guilty plea,
for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Byrd pleaded guilty conditioned upon his
right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence gained by a police officer in a warrantless
detention and search. Byrd argues that the district court erred
when it denied his motion to suppress evidence because the
officer who searched him had no objectively reasonable basis to
detain him and that the detention and pat down search, which led
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-30381
-2-
to the discovery of the firearm and Byrd’s confession, fails
under the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22
(1968).
Suppression hearing testimony indicates that before the
officer conducted the pat down search or otherwise detained Byrd,
see United States v. Watson, 953 F.2d 895, 897 n.1 (1992), the
officer observed Byrd in a high crime area where homes were
frequently abandoned and then taken over by people who were
involved in criminal activity, it was midnight, Byrd was on the
porch of a house that appeared to be under construction, Byrd
initially admitted that he did not reside in the house and
indicated that he did not know how to reach the owner, and Byrd
appeared nervous. Also, from prior drug investigations that the
officer had conducted in the same area of town, the officer
recognized Byrd as someone who frequented areas of high drug use.
The totality of the circumstances thus indicates that the officer
had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct the
investigatory stop. See United States v. Jordan, 232 F.3d 447,
448-49 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Holloway, 962 F.2d 451,
459 & n.22 (5th Cir. 1992). When the officer conducted the pat
down search, which is permitted once an investigatory stop is
properly made, see Jordan, 232 F.3d at 449, the officer saw a
crack cocaine pipe sticking out of Byrd’s back pocket.
Additionally, a firearm was visible inside the open doorway of
No. 04-30381
-3-
the house. The district court therefore did not err when it
denied Byrd’s motion to suppress.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.