United States v. Segun Waldron , 449 F. App'x 680 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50435
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01271-DSF-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SEGUN WALDRON, AKA Patrick
Miller,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 29, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG, District
Judge.**
Segun Waldron appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
evidence obtained as a result of a search of his vehicle, a black H2 Hummer.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Following the denial of his motion, Waldron entered a conditional guilty plea to
possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
and (b)(1)(A), but reserved the right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress.
We affirm.
“Under the automobile exception . . . police may conduct a warrantless
search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains
evidence of a crime.” United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.
2010). “Probable cause to search is evaluated in light of the totality of the
circumstances.” Id. at 1193–94 (quoting United States v. Pinela-Hernandez, 262
F.3d 974, 978 (9th Cir. 2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
investigating agents drew upon multiple sources to establish probable cause to
search Waldron’s vehicle. They had information from a reliable confidential
informant that the Hummer contained contraband. See United States v. Elliott, 322
F.3d 710, 715–16 (9th Cir. 2003). The information was corroborated by both
innocent and suspicious circumstances indicating the presence of contraband. The
agents ran a trained narcotics dog around the exterior of the Hummer before
searching the vehicle, and the dog gave a positive alert—indicating that it smelled
narcotics. See United States v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir.
2003).
2
Based on the totality of the circumstances—the corroborated confidential
informant, the dog alert, and Waldron’s suspicious behavior—the district court
correctly found that there was probable cause to believe that Waldron’s Hummer
contained evidence of drug trafficking. See Brooks, 610 F.3d at 1193-94.
AFFIRMED.
3