United States v. Shannan Lee Winemiller

Case: 16-10505 Date Filed: 02/08/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10505
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cr-00170-RBD-GJK-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHANNAN LEE WINEMILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 8, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-10505 Date Filed: 02/08/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Shannan Winemiller appeals his two convictions, following a jury trial, for
aiming a laser pointer at an aircraft in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 39A and 2. He
raises two primary arguments on appeal. First, he maintains that the district court
erred by denying his motion to suppress key evidence that he claims was obtained
by an unlawful stop and frisk. Second, he contends that the jury’s verdict must be
reversed because it was only supported by circumstantial evidence. We disagree.
The district court correctly denied Mr. Winemiller’s motion to suppress.
The motion took aim at two laser pointers found on his friend and co-defendant,
Rolando Espinoza. Mr. Winemiller principally relies on the well-established rule
that, without more, an officer cannot stop a defendant who is merely in an area
with criminal activity. See, e.g., Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000);
United States v. Perkins, 348 F.3d 965, 971 (11th Cir. 2003). But Mr. Winemiller
overlooks that there was more here.
The circumstances justified the responding officer’s stop and frisk of Mr.
Winemiller and Mr. Espinoza. The night of the arrest a commercial airline pilot
reported being struck by a high-intensity laser. A police helicopter was sent to
investigate and it too was then struck by a laser. An officer in the helicopter was
able to identify the location from where the laser originated and observed that there
were only two individuals in the area. The officer then requested ground support
and relayed the information to the responding officer who arrived on the scene to
2
Case: 16-10505 Date Filed: 02/08/2017 Page: 3 of 4
find only Mr. Winemiller and Mr. Espinoza. The responding officer then flashed
his spotlight on the two men and asked them to come forward with their hands up.
Upon patting them down the officer found the first of the two laser pointers on Mr.
Espinoza.
Under these circumstances, including the information relayed by the officer
in the helicopter and the potential for any high-intensity laser to harm and disable
an officer on the scene or an aircraft in flight, the officer was permitted stop and
frisk Mr. Winemiller and Mr. Espinoza. See United States v. Lindsey, 482 F.3d
1285, 1290 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n officer conducting a stop must have a
reasonable, articulable suspicion based on objective facts that the person has
engaged in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity.”) (citation and quotation
marks omitted); United States v. Griffin, 696 F.3d 1354, 1359 (11th Cir. 2012)
(“Once an officer has stopped an individual, he may conduct a pat-down or frisk
for weapons if he reasonably believes that his safety, or the safety of others, is
threatened.”) (citation omitted). Mr. Winemiller, moreover, has failed to show that
he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his friend’s pocket or porch that was
protected by the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. McKennon, 814 F.2d
1539, 1542–43 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Sarda-Villa, 760 F.2d 1232, 1236
(11th Cir. 1985).
3
Case: 16-10505 Date Filed: 02/08/2017 Page: 4 of 4
We also have no quarrel with the questioning that resulted in the statement
that there was a second laser pointer on Mr. Espinoza’s porch. A responding
officer merely asked whether Mr. Winemiller and Mr. Espinoza had anything
dangerous near the chairs where they had been sitting. This inquiry was aimed at
obtaining information for the officer’s safety, and therefore permissible. So too,
then, was searching that area to locate the second laser pointer. See United States
v. Newsome, 475 F.3d 1221, 1224–25 (11th Cir. 2007).
Finally, the jury’s verdict was supported by sufficient evidence. Mr.
Winemiller’s main basis for the sufficiency challenge is that the government only
presented circumstantial evidence against him. We have repeatedly explained,
however, that a conviction may be supported by circumstantial evidence so long as
the jury could reasonably infer guilt from that evidence. See, e.g., United States v.
Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278, 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting circumstantial evidence may
support the jury’s verdict). Here the jury had enough to find, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Mr. Winemiller was guilty. For example, Mr. Winemiller told the
officers that he and Mr. Espinoza had been playing with lasers by pointing them at
various objects, including aircraft, and he thought they had hit three or four
aircraft.
AFFIRMED.
4