USA v. Willie Simpson, No. 10-50187 (5th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-50187 Document: 00511376621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-50187 Summary Calendar February 9, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WILLIE SIMPSON, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:09-CR-299-1 Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Willie Simpson entered a guilty plea to a charge of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment. Simpson reserved the right to appeal the district court s denial of his motion to suppress cocaine base seized during a search of his person. When a district court s factual findings on a motion to suppress are based on live testimony at a suppression hearing, we will accept those findings unless they are clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of the law. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. Case: 10-50187 Document: 00511376621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2011 No. 10-50187 United States v. Jackson, 596 F.3d 236, 239-40 (5th Cir.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2126, 131 S. Ct. 90 (2010). We review de novo the district court s ultimate conclusions on Fourth Amendment issues. United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 405 (5th Cir. 2006). [I]n the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a reasonable search under that Amendment. Lockett v. New Orleans City, 607 F.3d 992, 1001 (5th Cir), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 507 (2010) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973)). Police officers are not constrained to search only for weapons or instruments of escape on the arrestee s person; they may also, without any additional justification, look for evidence of the arrestee s crime on his person in order to preserve it for use at trial. See Robinson, 414 U.S. at 233-34. Simpson does not challenge the district court s determination that Officer Duboise s search of his person was a search incident to arrest. Rather, Simpson argues that the search of his person was unreasonable under the factors identified in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979). Pursuant to Bell, the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment requires a balancing of the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Bell, 441 U.S. at 559. We must consider (1) the scope of the particular intrusion; (2) the manner in which it is conducted; (3) the justification for initiating it; and (4) the place in which it is conducted. Id. Simpson contends that the district court s factual finding--that no evidence existed that the officer reached inside his pants during the search--was clearly erroneous and that because the district court s denial of his motion to suppress was based on this clearly erroneous factual finding, the district court s denial of his motion to suppress should be vacated. We will, however, uphold the district court s denial of the motion to suppress if there is any reasonable view of the evidence to support it. United States v. Gonzalez, 190 F.3d 668, 671 (5th Cir. 2 Case: 10-50187 Document: 00511376621 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2011 No. 10-50187 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Officer Duboise s apparent reach in from the bottom of Simpson s shorts to retrieve the bag of crack cocaine did not render the search unreasonable. The search did not unreasonably infringe on Simpson s privacy interests when those interests are balanced against the legitimate needs of the police to seize the contraband Simpson carried on his person. See Bell, 441 U.S. at 559. AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
