United States v. Perdue

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4555
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RODNEY WILLIAM PERDUE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(7:05-cr-00047-gec-1)
Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: May 21, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy V. Cargill, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Edward A. Lustig, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Rodney William
Perdue entered a plea of guilty to possession with intent to
distribute five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(2000) (Count One), and
distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(2000) (Count Three). The
district court sentenced Perdue to two concurrent sentences of 70
months of imprisonment. Perdue reserved the right to appeal the
district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence relating
to Count One, in which he argued the evidence seized from his
person was obtained without probable cause and as a result of an
unlawful search. Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews the factual findings underlying the
denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal
conclusions de novo. United States v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 187, 193
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 134 (2005). The evidence is
construed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
below. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.
1998).
In determining whether probable cause existed for an
arrest, the court must look at the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the arrest. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-32
(1983); Taylor v. Waters, 81 F.3d 429, 434 (4th Cir. 1996).
- 2 -
Probable cause for a warrantless arrest is defined as “facts and
circumstances within the officer’s knowledge that are sufficient to
warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in
believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has
committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.”
United States v. Gray, 137 F.3d 765, 769 (4th Cir. 1998) (citations
omitted). Determining whether the information surrounding an
arrest is sufficient to establish probable cause is an
individualized and fact-specific inquiry. Wong Sun v. United
States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 (1963). Additionally, officers are
permitted to draw on their experience and specialized training to
make inferences from and deductions about cumulative evidence.
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002).
The district court based its finding of probable cause on
the following facts available to the officers: (1) the driver of
the car in which Perdue was riding was responding to a call from a
police source attempting to make a drug delivery; (2) the
confidential source identified the driver of the car; (3) Perdue
refused to cooperate with police when their weapons were drawn; (4)
when asked to place his hands in the air, Perdue instead placed his
hands in the back of his pants as if to shove something down; (5)
an initial weapons pat down of Perdue revealed no weapon.
Moreover, Detective Daniel explained that in his experience in drug
interdiction, drug dealers did not travel with individuals who were
- 3 -
not involved in drug activity, drug dealers were often accompanied
by others who physically transported the drugs to be sold, those
involved with drug dealing frequently carried weapons, and when
threatened with interception by the police, those in possession of
drugs often concealed the drugs in their buttocks. Therefore, he
drew an inference based on these observations and the cumulative
evidence that Perdue was carrying contraband.
We conclude that the totality of the circumstances, when
construed in the light most favorable to the Government, provided
the officers with probable cause to believe Perdue was engaged in
criminal activity, thus justifying his continued detention and
search. Accordingly, we affirm Perdue’s convictions and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -