United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Pedro R. Garcia, Defendant-appellant, 69 F.3d 549 (10th Cir. 1995)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT¹ 

Defendant Pedro R. Garcia entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) (1), and using or carrying a firearm in relation to drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). He reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence and statements he made to law enforcement officers.

On appeal defendant contends that the law enforcement officers (1) lacked reasonable suspicion for the initial stop, (2) failed to obtain valid consent from defendant's spouse to search their residence, and (3) obtained incriminating statements from defendant in violation of his rights under the Sixth Amendment and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The parties are familiar with the facts, which appear in the district court's memorandum and order reported as United States v. Garcia, 861 F. Supp. 996 (D. Kan. 1994); we will not repeat them here. When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we accept the findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, but review de novo the ultimate issue of reasonableness. United States v. Madrid, 30 F.3d 1269, 1275 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 527 (1994).

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and are satisfied that the district court's opinion denying suppression accurately summarized the facts and correctly applied the law. Defendant's initial detention occurred after he drove onto the premises of a just-arrested suspected drug dealer where officers were stationed awaiting a search warrant. We are satisfied this was within the bounds permitted by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). The record establishes that the officers obtained valid consent from defendant's wife to search their residence. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974). Finally, when the officers questioned defendant at his home approximately a week later, he was not in custody and no criminal charges were pending against him. To the extent the district court's findings are based upon assessments of witness credibility, those determinations are not clearly erroneous. United States v. Pappas, 735 F.2d 1232, 1233 (10th Cir. 1984).

We AFFIRM for substantially the reasons stated in the district court memorandum and order.