Unpublished Disposition, 914 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Kerry Eileen Green (Green) and Brian Casey (Casey) appeal from their convictions after conditional pleas of guilty to possession of stolen mail and aiding and abetting a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1708. Green and Casey seek reversal of the district court's order of April 7, 1989, which denied their motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle and statements made following their arrest. Green and Case contend before this court that "because the search of the car and the subsequent questioning at the station were both tainted by the illegal arrest, all evidence found and statements made must be suppressed." Appellant's Joint Opening Brief at page 25. We affirm because we conclude that probable cause existed for Green and Casey's arrest in a stolen automobile.

The government bears the burden of showing that a warrantless seizure does not violate the fourth amendment. United States v. Delgadillo-Velasquez, 856 F.2d 1292, 1295 (9th Cir. 1988). We review de novo the district court's conclusion that probable cause to arrest is shown by the evidence. Id. Findings of fact made by the district court are reviewed for clear error. Id.

Our first task is to review the record independently, without deference to the district court's conclusion, to determine whether probable cause existed to arrest Green and Casey. Because our review is de novo, the fact that the district court did not rule on the question whether probable cause existed to arrest Green is not significant.

To establish the legality of the arrest of Green and Casey, the government presented evidence of the citizen-informant's anonymous tip and the independent observations of the officers. In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supreme Court held that a reviewing court must determine from a "totality of the circumstances" whether an informant's anonymous tip establishes probable cause. Id. at 233; see also Alabama v. White, 58 U.S.L.W. 4747 (U.S. June 11, 1990) (the "totality of the circumstances" approach should be used in "determining whether an informant's tip establishes probable cause").

At the suppression hearing, Detective Ragsdale testified that he had received information from Detective Parks that a citizen had reported that a stolen car, possibly from San Diego, described as a gray 1988 Chevrolet Corsica, was parked at the El Rancho Motel. The car "possibly" had a "Bud Beck" cardboard advertising placard in the license plate holder. Bud Beck is a Pontiac dealer in Phoenix, Arizona. A white male and white female were with the car. Detective Parks also informed Detective Ragsdale that the license plates were in the trunk of the Corsica.

Based on this information, Detective Ragsdale and three officers went to the El Rancho Motel. A gray 1988 Chevrolet Corsica was observed in the parking lot. The car had no permanent license plates. The license plate holder contained a cardboard placard advertising "Bob Baker Chevrolet Isuzu." In approximately ten minutes, Detective Ragsdale observed Casey, a white male, and Green, a white female, enter the gray 1988 Chevrolet Corsica. They were accompanied by an older white male. Casey drove a few blocks from the motel. The other white male got out of the vehicle. At this time, the officers blocked the front and rear of the vehicle to prevent it from being moved. Green and Casey were placed under arrest and handcuffed.

The facts recited in the informant's tip were corroborated in virtually every detail by the observations of the officers. See Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 313 (1959) (personal verification by an officer of the facts related by an informer can show probable cause). In addition, the officers observed that the vehicle did not have license plates. This fact, standing alone, strongly suggested that the vehicle might have been stolen.

As required by Illinois v. Gates, the details of the informant's tip were corroborated by independent police work. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 241. The fact that the citizen informant was mistaken as to the name of the dealer on the advertising placard is not significant in light of the "totality of the circumstances." The fact that Green and Casey were observed to be in the company of another person for a few blocks does not demonstrate that the informer's tip lacked reliability or lacked veracity, in light of the accuracy of his information in all other respects. We are persuaded from our independent, de novo examination of the record that the government met its burden of demonstrating probable cause to arrest Green and Casey.

Since no showing has been made that Green or Casey's fourth amendment rights were violated by the search of the car, the motion to suppress the evidence seized from the vehicle and the statements made at the station house were properly denied. Therefore, the judgment is AFFIRMED.