United States v. Conley ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10923 Document: 00516892112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/12/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10923
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 12, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Drayon Conley,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CR-347-1
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Drayon Conley entered a conditional-guilty plea to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), reserving his
right to contest the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Conley was
sentenced to 105-months’ imprisonment.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10923 Document: 00516892112 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/12/2023
No. 22-10923
He contends the court erred by denying his motion to suppress
evidence seized in connection with an admittedly proper traffic stop. He
subsequently consented to have his vehicle searched. He maintains the scope
of the stop was expanded without reasonable suspicion of additional criminal
conduct.
For the contested denial of a suppression motion, our court reviews
“the factual determinations for clear error and the legal conclusions de
novo”. United States v. Powell, 732 F.3d 361, 369 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation
omitted). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party who
prevailed in the district court—here, the Government. Id.Whether the record demonstrates reasonable suspicion is a question
of law reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. McKinney, 980 F.3d 485, 491
(5th Cir. 2020). The denial of a motion to suppress “should be upheld if
there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it”. United States v.
Nelson, 990 F.3d 947, 953 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). Moreover, our
court “may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record”.
United States v. Taylor, 482 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2007).
Conley concedes the initial stop was justified based on his traffic
violation. Accordingly, our court reviews whether the Officer’s actions, after
the legitimate stop, “were reasonably related to the circumstances that
justified the stop, or to dispelling his reasonable suspicion developed during
the stop”. United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507 (5th Cir. 2004) (en
banc). The district court, without holding a hearing, concluded the Officer’s
actions were permissible because Conley was: driving a vehicle registered to
someone else; serving a term of supervised release; and present in the parking
lot of a motel known for drug trafficking and prostitution. The court,
therefore, concluded the Officer “was justified in asking Conley to exit his
2
Case: 22-10923 Document: 00516892112 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/12/2023
No. 22-10923
vehicle for further questioning”, and “the stop was not prolonged beyond
the point necessary for [the Officer] to satisfy his reasonable suspicion”.
First, driving a vehicle registered to someone else can, in combination
with other factors, support reasonable suspicion. See United States v. Reyes,
963 F.3d 482, 488–89 (5th Cir. 2020) (including vehicle registration in list of
“specific and articulable” facts supporting reasonable suspicion). Second,
Conley confirmed he was on supervised release and told the Officer he was:
previously found with drugs and a firearm; convicted of being a felon in
possession of a firearm; and recently released from prison. His criminal
history, in combination with other factors, can contribute to reasonable
suspicion. See id. at 489; United States v. Gonzalez, 328 F.3d 755, 758 (5th
Cir. 2003) (discussing reasonable suspicion to extend stop). Finally,
Conley’s presence in the parking lot of a motel known for drug trafficking and
prostitution “can contribute to a finding of reasonable suspicion”, even
though his “presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone,
is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the
person is committing a crime”. United States v. Roper, 63 F.4th 473, 478 (5th
Cir. 2023) (emphasis and citation omitted).
The Officer’s reasonable suspicion further coalesced when he
observed tattoos on Conley emblematic of gang membership. He admitted
to the Officer he belonged to a gang, and had been a member since 1997. (But,
Conley stated: “I don’t be out there gangbanging. I don’t gangbang”. And
he later stated: “I don’t do that gang [stuff] anymore”.) An officer’s
knowledge that a person is a member of a gang supports the officer’s
reasonable suspicion of additional criminal activity. See McKinney, 980 F.3d
at 493.
Conley also failed to present the Officer with a valid driver’s license,
even though Conley had been driving the vehicle, and the records check
3
Case: 22-10923 Document: 00516892112 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/12/2023
No. 22-10923
revealed no active driver’s license in Conley’s name. The absence of a valid
driver’s license can also contribute to reasonable suspicion. See United States
v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 361 (5th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 622 F.3d 383(5th Cir. 2010) (discussing reasonable suspicion when license suspended).
Viewing the totality of the circumstances in the requisite light most
favorable to the Government, the court did not err in concluding the Officer
developed reasonable suspicion of criminal activity apart from Conley’s
traffic violation. See Reyes, 963 F.3d at 487, 489. Certainly, “[t]he police
must diligently pursue a means of investigation that is likely to confirm or
dispel their suspicions quickly”. Pack, 612 F.3d at 361. But, the Officer met
that requirement because less than five minutes passed between when he
informed Conley of the reason he was stopped and Conley’s consent to
search the vehicle. E.g., id. at 361–62 (holding “a delay of only eight
minutes” was reasonable in the light “of suspicious facts”).
AFFIRMED.
4