United States v. Howard ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    August 14, 2009
    No. 08-40644
    Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    BRIAN ONEAL HOWARD,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:06-CR-148-1
    Before BENAVIDES, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Brian Oneal Howard appeals his conviction for possession with the intent
    to distribute between 5 and 50 grams of crack cocaine. He argues that the
    district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence because the
    investigatory stop was not justified by reasonable suspicion that criminal
    activity was afoot, as required by Terry v. Ohio, 
    392 U.S. 1
     (1968). Howard also
    contends that his consent to search the vehicle was not valid because it was
    tainted by the illegal detention.
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. 08-40644
    We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and the
    legality of the investigatory stop de novo. See United States v. Outlaw, 
    319 F.3d 701
    , 704 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Vasquez, 
    298 F.3d 354
    , 356 (5th Cir.
    2002). Police officers are permitted to stop and briefly detain individuals “if they
    have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” Goodson v. City of
    Corpus Christi, 
    202 F.3d 730
    , 736 (5th Cir. 2000). Reasonable suspicion must
    be based on “‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational
    inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion.’” United States
    v. Webster, 
    162 F.3d 308
    , 332 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Terry, 
    392 U.S. at 21
    ).
    Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find that the officer’s
    suspicion that criminal activity was afoot was reasonable. See United States v.
    Grant, 
    349 F.3d 192
    , 197 (5th Cir. 2003). In the early morning hours when all
    nearby businesses were closed, Detective Ainsworth observed Howard driving
    slowly in circuitous routes near a closed theater that had recently been
    burglarized. Howard appeared as though he was attempting to evade Detective
    Ainsworth and committed traffic violations in his efforts. Additionally, the
    events occurred in a narcotics trafficking area. These facts objectively provided
    reasonable suspicion for the stop. See Illinois v. Wardlaw, 
    528 U.S. 119
    , 124
    (2000); Goodson, 
    202 F.3d at 736
    .
    Because the investigatory stop was constitutional, it is unnecessary to
    address Howard’s challenge to the validity of the consent. His argument is
    based solely on the alleged unconstitutionality of the detention. Accordingly, the
    judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-40644

Judges: Benavides, Per Curiam, Prado, Southwick

Filed Date: 8/14/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024