United States v. Bell

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50289
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEVON LEANDER BELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-96-CR-105-1
- - - - - - - - - -
January 19, 1998
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jevon Leander Bell appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion to suppress evidence. Bell was subject to a weapons
pat-down after police officers stopped the vehicle in which he
was a passenger because one of its occupants was not wearing a
seat belt. During the pat-down, the officers located a package
containing crack cocaine. Bell argues that the pat-down was not
justified because he presented no danger to the officers.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-50289
-2-
The officers articulated specific facts supporting their
belief that Bell was armed and dangerous. See Terry v. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1, 22-24, 27 (1968); United States v. Baker, 47 F.3d 691,
693 (5th Cir. 1995). Bell appeared nervous and was observed
making furtive movements in the vehicle as if trying to hide
something. See United States v. Colin, 928 F.2d 676, 678 (5th
Cir. 1991); United States v. Garza, 921 F.2d 59, 59-60 (5th Cir.
1991). Additionally, the officers recognized Bell through
previous investigations as an individual involved in drug
trafficking, drive-by shootings, and gang activity. See, Garza,
921 F.2d at 59-60.
During the pat-down, the officers discovered a package
hidden in Bell’s trousers. Upon feeling the size and shape of
the package, it was immediately apparent to the officers that it
contained crack cocaine; thus probable cause to believe that Bell
possessed contraband arose during the course of the weapons pat-
down. See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76 (1993);
United States v. Cooper, 43 F.3d 140, 148 (5th Cir. 1995). The
continued search of Bell’s person was valid as a search pursuant
to arrest. United States v. Ho, 94 F.3d 932, 935 (5th Cir.
1996).
The district court did not err in denying Bell’s motion to
suppress.
AFFIRMED.