United States vs. Martin, No. 05-3306 (10th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS October 11, 2006 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 05-3306 v. (D. Kansas) JA IM O N D D . M A RTIN , (D.C. No. 04-CR-20100-CM ) Defendant - Appellant. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before KELLY, A ND ER SO N, and BEAM , ** Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Jaimond D. M artin pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(A )(iii). He appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the cocaine which was found in his car at the time of his arrest. W e affirm. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. ** The Honorable C . Arlen Beam, United States Circuit Judge, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation. BACKGROUND On July 11, 2004, Kansas City, Kansas, police officer Brian W hisner received a call from dispatch directing him to respond to an alleged aggravated assault. Dispatch told Officer W hisner that an elderly woman had called to inform the police that a young African-American male in his 20 s, later identified as defendant M artin, had parked his car, described as a red and silver older model Chevrolet with tags reading CLASSIC, on her property. The woman further stated that, when her husband had gone outside to confront the young man, the young man had pointed a gun at him. 1 W hile the officer was driving to the location of the alleged assault, he saw a car matching the description of the car involved in the assault. Officer W hisner testified that, when the driver of the Chevrolet (defendant M artin) saw the officer s police vehicle, he whipped off the street and whipped off into a driveway. Tr. of Suppression Hr g at 8-9, R. Vol. II. The driveway turned out to belong to M artin s parents. Furthermore, the Chevrolet was registered at that address in M artin s name. Officer W hisner testified that he parked his police vehicle on the street behind a fir tree. He stated that M artin ran from his car, not in the direction of 1 Officer W hisner testified that he learned probably two hours after he arrested M artin that the victim of the alleged aggravated assault had told an investigating officer that M artin had returned the gun to a neighbor. Tr. of Suppression Hr g at 30, R. Vol. II. -2- the front door of the house, but rather towards nearby woods. W hisner further testified that he drew his gun and ordered M artin to stop because he observed something in M artin s hand which the officer thought was a gun. As it turned out, M artin held a cell phone in his hand. Officer W hisner apprehended M artin, walked him to the front of the police car, handcuffed him, patted him down and placed him under arrest. He found no contraband or weapon on M artin. The officer then placed M artin in the caged area in the back of his police vehicle. The police car was approximately forty feet from M artin s car. W hisner testified that the driver s door of M artin s car w as open and the engine running. He further testified that he walked over to the car to secure th[e] vehicle, id. at 12, and because possibly [there would be] a gun laying around or on the ground nearby. Id. at 13. As he stood in front of the open door of the car, he saw a big ball of what [he] believed [to be] crack cocaine lying [r]ight smack in the driver s seat. Id. Officer W hisner also saw a Crown Royal bag on the floorboard, out of which more crack cocaine and marijuana spilled. At that point, W hisner called for back-up. Other officers arrived and took photographs of the scene. Field tests revealed the drugs were indeed cocaine and marijuana. Two defense witnesses contradicted certain parts of W hisner s testimony. Trina W hite, an acquaintance of M artin s whose best friend was M artin s -3- neighbor, testified that she was visiting her friend the morning of M artin s arrest. She testified that she saw M artin drive slowly (five miles per hour) up the street, with a police car following him slowly. She further testified that M artin got out of his car, closed the car door, and began walking up the front steps of his parents house. W hite also testified that W hisner parked his police car right behind M artin s car in the driveway of M artin s parents house. Another neighbor, Antonio Johnson, 2 similarly testified that he saw M artin drive slowly down the street, with a police car following him, and that M artin got out of his car, closed the car door and proceeded up the front steps of the home. In contradiction to W hite s testimony, Johnson testified that the police car was parked on the street, not in the driveway. 3 After listening to this testimony at the suppression hearing, the district court noted the conflicts between the various accounts given: [T]he court would find that the court heard conflicting testimony as to the events preceding the seizure of the evidence at issue[.] Officer W hisner testified that when he encountered defendant s vehicle defendant sped away and whipped into the driveway of his residence and that defendant ran from his vehicle to elude the police officer leaving his vehicle s side door open. Defendant s witnesses, 2 Johnson is married to W hite s best friend, whom W hite was visiting the morning of M artin s arrest. 3 Both Johnson and W hite observed M artin s arrest from Johnson s house. Johnson was on his back porch and White was on the front porch. Johnson testified that his back porch was perhaps 600 feet, or at least one and a half football fields length, away from M artin s driveway. Tr. of Suppression Hr g at 93-94, R. Vol. II. -4- specifically Trina W hite and Antonio Johnson, testified that they saw defendant drive very slowly down the street with a police vehicle following and that after closing defendant s driver s side door defendant walked up to the door of his residence before a police officer motioned for him to come to his car and calmly spoke to him from the driveway. It s clear to the court that there was conflicting testimony . . . . In light of the conflicting testimony presented, quite frankly, the court has serious concerns about Officer W hisner s testimony up to the point in time when defendant was placed into handcuffs. And that s because defendant s w itnesses, M iss W hite and M r. Johnson, appeared credible to the court and did not appear to have any motive to testify dishonestly. Tr. of Suppression Hr g at 130-31. R. Vol. II. The court nevertheless denied M artin s motion to suppress, stating even if this court were to rely solely on defendant s w itnesses . . . the seizure of the crack cocaine and marijuana in defendant s vehicle is still a law ful seizure . . . under the plain view and inventory exceptions to the warrant requirement. Id. at 131. As indicated, M artin pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and aiding and abetting. The government filed notice of a prior offense pursuant to 21 U .S.C. § 851. M artin w as sentenced to 240 months imprisonment, the minimum mandatory based upon the government s filing the notice of prior offense under § 851. M artin appeals the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing: In light of the district court s finding that Officer W hisner lacked credibility concerning the events leading up to M r. M artin s arrest, a remand is necessary for further findings in connection with the court s denial of the motion to suppress under the plain view and inventory search doctrines. -5- Appellant s Op. Br. at 1. D ISC USSIO N In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the ruling. United States v. Ojeda-Ramos, 455 F.3d 1178, 1180 (10th Cir. 2006). W e review de novo, however, the ultimate determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. Id. The district court found the w arrantless search of M artin s car and seizure of the drugs were justified under either the plain view or the inventory exception to the Fourth Amendment s warrant requirement. The government also argues on appeal that the seizure of drugs can be upheld because they were seized in the course of a search incident to a valid arrest. M artin argues that, because the district court made no finding about the [car] door s position, or whether the drugs would have been in plain view were the door closed, a remand is required for further findings on whether the drugs were, in fact, in plain view from the officer s perspective outside the closed car. Appellant s Op. Br. at 10. M artin argues this is particularly necessary because the district court specifically questioned the reliability of O fficer W hisner s testimony concerning his pursuit of M artin, given the fact that it was contradicted by two other witnesses, whom the district court specifically found credible on that -6- point. Thus, he argues, we have reason to doubt the reliability of W hisner s testimony about whether the car door was open or not and whether the drugs were really in plain view. He further argues that the search and seizure were not justified under the inventory exception or as a search incident to a valid arrest. M artin s counsel perceptively identifies an anomaly in the district court s findings concerning the credibility of Officer W hisner and she argues persuasively that a remand is necessary. Nonetheless, we ultimately conclude that such a remand is not required. Rather, we hold that the district court s finding that the drugs seized w ere in plain view is not clearly erroneous. Because we conclude that the plain view doctrine permitted the seizure of the drugs, we need not reach the issues of whether the seizure was justified under the inventory or search incident to an arrest exceptions to the warrant requirement. The plain view doctrine allows a law enforcement officer to seize evidence of a crime, without violating the Fourth Amendment, if (1) the officer was lawfully in a position from which the object seized was in plain view, (2) the object s incriminating character was immediately apparent (i.e., there was probable cause to believe it was contraband or evidence of a crime), and (3) the officer had a lawful right of access to the object. United States v. Angelos, 433 F.3d 738, 747 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Thomas, 372 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2004)). The district court found that all three elements of the plain view doctrine were satisfied here, including finding that it was irrelevant whether M artin s car door was open or not because the police have a right of access to contraband inside a vehicle even when the -7- vehicle s doors and windows are closed. Tr. of Suppression Hr g at 132, R. Vol. II. M artin does not dispute that W hisner was lawfully in a position to look in M artin s car, nor does he dispute the incriminating nature of the drugs. He argues that W hisner s testimony that the car door was open, permitting a clear view of the drugs inside, was not reliable because the district court had already found unreliable W hisner s testimony about other aspects of his encounter w ith M artin. W e do not agree. The district court specifically stated that it had serious concerns about Officer W hisner s testimony up to the point in time when defendant was placed in handcuffs. Tr. of Suppression Hr g at 131, R. Vol. II (emphasis added). However, the seizure of the drugs from the car occurred after that time. Given the court s conclusion that the plain view doctrine justified the seizure, the district court obviously implicitly found Officer W hisner s testimony about the car door and the location of the drugs was credible. Although the troopers testimony is at odds with that of the defendant s witness, when there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Implicit in the district court s order denying [defendant s] motion to suppress is the court s resolution of credibility issues in favor of the troopers. United States v. Toro-Pelaez, 107 F.3d 819, 824-25 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations and citation omitted). The court did not find all of O fficer W hisner s -8- testimony unreliable, only a specific part of it. And it implicitly found the remainder of his testimony to be credible. Furthermore, we find no clear error in the district court s conclusion that the drugs were clearly visible to Officer W hisner. The officer s testimony, based upon his observations and perception when he was standing only a few feet from the car containing the drugs, is only slightly contradicted by two witnesses watching from hundreds of feet away. See, supra, n.3. C ON CLU SIO N For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the denial of M artin s m otion to suppress. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge -9-
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.
