United States v. Kristofer Wright ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30206
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:14-cr-00112-SPW-1
v.
KRISTOFER MIKAL WRIGHT, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 5, 2018**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOULD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and MCSHANE,*** District Judge.
Appellant Kristofer Mikal Wright appeals the district court’s finding that
reasonable suspicion existed for police to conduct an investigatory stop of Wright
and to subsequently search a backpack. Because the officer who searched Wright
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
***
The Honorable Michael J. McShane, United States District Judge for
the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
1
had a reasonable belief that Wright engaged in criminal activity, and because
Wright denied any possessory interest in the backpack, we AFFIRM.
Under the totality of the circumstances, when the officer seized Wright by
asking him to stand in order to conduct a pat-down frisk, the officer had a
“particularized and objective basis” for suspecting Wright was engaging in or was
about to engage in criminal activity. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273
(2002). Here, the officer had information from a reliable, in-person, informant that
Wright just left what the informant believed to be a drug house. The officer was
familiar with the type of drug activity that occurred in the neighborhood. Wright’s
driving appeared evasive as the officer followed him. When the officer approached
Wright and his companion, they appeared nervous and under the influence of
methamphetamine. They gave conflicting accounts of their activities. Wright stated
he had no identification and could not immediately recall his name when asked.
The district court did not err in finding the information given to the officer
by an unidentified citizen complainant was reliable. United States v. Palos-
Marquez, 591 F.3d 1272, 1275 (9th Cir. 2010). The information provided by the
complainant, along with the subsequent observations of the officer, established
reasonable suspicion that Wright was engaged in criminal activity.
In addition, by repeatedly denying ownership of a backpack, Wright
relinquished any expectations of privacy with regard to its search. Abel v. United
2
States, 362 U.S. 217, 241 (1960). This provides an independent basis to affirm the
district court.
AFFIRMED.
3