Unpublished Disposition, 883 F.2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Keith Johnson appeals his conviction of two cocaine offenses. He contests the district court's denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence found during a pat-down search incident to his warrantless arrest. We affirm.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Detective Alejandro Rosales, employed by the Los Angeles Police Department for 17 1/2 years, received an anonymous phone call regarding sales of rock cocaine from a residence at 9474 South Hobart Boulevard in Los Angeles. Rosales sent undercover officer David Wooden to the residence to attempt to buy cocaine. Wooden successfully purchased .6 grams of rock cocaine from Michael Askew on January 25, 1988, and .9 grams and 5.9 grams of rock cocaine, respectively, on February 1 and 2, 1988. On February 18, 1988, Rosales executed a search warrant for the residence, and arrested Michael Askew pursuant to an arrest warrant.

Askew told Rosales that he obtained his rock cocaine from "Nardo." Rosales then took Askew to a pay phone, and observed him dial the phone number 219-5225, then dial the pay phone number and hang up. About ten seconds later, the pay phone rang and Askew said to the caller that he needed one and one-half ounces of cocaine to be delivered to 9474 South Hobart, Los Angeles. Rosales then drove Askew back to the Hobart Boulevard residence.

On the ride back to the house, Askew told Rosales that Nardo would probably come in a white corvette, a brown Toyota sedan or a blue Hyundai. Rosales testified that Askew told him that Nardo "usually brings it himself or sends a runner. He walks up to the door and I wait for him at the door." Askew described Nardo as being about two inches taller than himself, black, twenty-five years old, with a full head of hair. He also stated that another individual who would sometimes accompany Nardo was Keith, who is about the same age, taller, black, thin, and had a light complexion. Askew told Rosales that Nardo usually took an hour or two to deliver the cocaine, and sometimes carried a gun.

Rosales and Askew returned to the Hobart Boulevard residence. They had waited approximately two hours when Rosales saw a blue Hyundai parked in front of the residence. Rosales observed a man who matched the description of Nardo in the automobile, and then saw Keith Johnson knock on the front door. Rosales opened the front door and Johnson entered the residence. Rosales testified that Johnson matched the physical description of "Keith" provided by Askew. Rosales identified himself as a police officer and placed Johnson under arrest. Detective Crane, Rosales' partner, conducted a pat-down search of Johnson and found a plastic baggie containing rock cocaine.

Johnson was indicted on two felony counts for possession and distribution of cocaine. He filed a motion to suppress the cocaine found on him during the pat-down search. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion. Johnson then entered a conditional guilty plea, pursuant to Rule 11(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Johnson was sentenced, and he filed a timely notice of appeal. Johnson is currently serving his sentence.

DISCUSSION

The issue presented here is whether the police had probable cause to arrest Johnson without a warrant, because police officers are authorized to make warrantless arrests only on probable cause. United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 423 (1976). The test for probable cause has been summarized as whether "facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge ... are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution [to believe] in the circumstances shown, that the suspect has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offense." Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 37 (1979). We review the district court's determination of probable cause de novo. United States v. Fixen, 780 F.2d 1434, 1435-36 (9th Cir. 1986). After a valid arrest of an individual, the police may conduct a warrantless search of the person. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981).

We conclude that the police officers had probable cause to arrest Johnson. Michael Askew, who had just been arrested for selling cocaine, told Rosales he would arrange for a delivery of cocaine to the residence. This is not a case of an anonymous tip; here, the police knew Askew had a basis of knowledge for the information. Rosales then observed Askew make a phone call and request delivery of the cocaine. Because the information Askew gave was very detailed, and the police were able independently to corroborate it, Askew's credibility increased. See United States v. LaChapelle, 869 F.2d 488, 490-91 (9th Cir. 1989); Fixen, 780 F.2d at 1436-38. Under the totality of circumstances, see Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230 (1983), we agree with the district court that the police had probable cause to arrest Johnson. As a result, the district court was correct in refusing to suppress the cocaine discovered on Johnson in the pat-down search incident to the arrest.

AFFIRMED.