United States v. Calvin Sims

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50552
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01325-MMM-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALVIN SIMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 6, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Calvin Sims appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
fruits of a stop, arrest, and search, following which he entered a conditional guilty
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
plea to conspiracy and bank robbery. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM the
district court’s denial.
The parties are familiar with the facts. Two men wearing black face masks
robbed a bank on December 1, 2010. A witness observed the getaway van and its
driver both before and after the robbery and gave responding officers the first four
characters of the van’s license plate. After hearing the radio dispatch from
responding officers, the arresting officer stopped the van and arrested the three
occupants, one of whom was Sims. The officer saw a large mesh bag full of cash
sitting on the front passenger seat of the vehicle, a piece of cloth that appeared to
be a face mask on the front passenger floorboard, and torn money wraps and
paperclips on the floor area behind the front seats. Later that day, crime scene
personnel conducted an inventory of the van’s contents, recovering other items
related to the bank robbery.
We review motions to suppress de novo and the trial court’s factual findings
for clear error. United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2008).
Warrantless arrests require that the arresting officer have probable cause.
Probable cause to arrest “exists when, under the totality of the circumstances
known to the arresting officers, a prudent person would have concluded that there
was a fair probability that [the defendant] had committed a crime.” United States
2
v. Buckner, 179 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Garza, 980
F.2d 546, 550 (9th Cir. 1992)). The information on which officers rely in forming
their conclusions regarding probable cause must be “reasonably trustworthy.”
United States v. Butler, 74 F.3d 916, 920 (9th Cir. 1996) . Arresting officers are
entitled to rely on the probable cause developed by other officers. United States v.
Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229-32 (1985).
Here, the totality of the circumstances weigh in favor of the arresting officer
having probable cause. He had a description of the getaway van, which included a
partial license plate number. He also knew that the van would have three people in
it and a female driver. He saw a van getting on a highway that met the description
he had just heard on the radio. Following Buckner, a “prudent person would have
concluded that there was a fair probability” that the bank robbers were inside.
Police had probable cause to believe they would find the evidence of the
bank robbery inside the car even before the arresting officer observed the evidence.
Seeing the evidence in plain view gave the officer additional probable cause. The
search of the van was a valid search incident to arrest. Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.
332, 351 (2009). It was also valid under the automobile exception. California v.
Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991).
AFFIRMED.
3