US v. Quantas Howard, No. 04-4487 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: January 14, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-4487 (CR-03-141) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. QUANTAS LEE HOWARD, Defendant - Appellant. O R D E R Upon consideration of the submissions filed relative to the motion to amend the opinion, the Court grants the motion. The opinion filed March 28, 2005, is modified by replacing the name of the driver of the vehicle mentioned in the opinion with her initials. For the Court By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT _______________ No. 04-4487 _______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus QUANTAS LEE HOWARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CR-03-141) _______________ Submitted: February 18, 2005 Decided: _______________ March 28, 2005 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. _______________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _______________ Gary L. Lumsden, Rhonda Lee Overstreet, LUMSDEN, OVERSTREET & HANSEN, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. _______________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Quantas Lee Howard appeals the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. Finding no error, we affirm. I. On September 19, 2003, government agents and local police were conducting an interdiction operation at the Roanoke City bus terminal. During this operation, officers observed a car driven by J.Y., in which Howard was a passenger, enter the parking area of the bus terminal. The car pulled alongside a red of minivan while conversation. the occupants both cars engaged in One individual gestured toward the police and then both cars prepared to leave. At this time, an individual, later identified as Shawn Collins, was seen exiting the van and walking away from the bus terminal with his luggage. The officers thought this behavior was suspicious so they pursued him and eventually possession. found a concealed weapon in Collins=s Howard, who was also observed exiting J.Y.=s car and walking away from the station, approached the area of Collins=s detention. Howard stood next to a plain clothes officer, Agent Bonaventura, and appeared interested in Collins=s detention and nervous. Howard admitted to Bonaventura that he and Collins - 3 - were friends. When Collins=s weapon was discovered, Howard expressed surprise, stating AOh, damn!,@ and then began walking away. At this time, Bonaventura identified himself as a DEA agent and asked to speak with Howard. Howard denied having any identification and reported his name to be AGregory Omar Thomas.@ He then produced a school transcript bearing that same name. However, the social security number Howard told police did not match the number listed on the transcript.* Both Bonaventura and another officer reported that Howard appeared nervous and had a change in Bonaventura breathing rate while concluded that Howard talking was to trying the to conceal identity and proceeded to pat him down for weapons. felt a hard object in Howard=s front pants pocket. turned out to be a marijuana pipe. officers. his Bonaventura The item At this point, Bonaventura turned Howard over to the local police, who transported him to * Howard further asserts that the Government=s evidence regarding the identifying information Howard allegedly gave to police and how it appeared suspicious is in conflict. He appears to be attacking the credibility of the officers for giving conflicting testimony. However, the court specifically stated that its determination of reasonable suspicion was based on Bonaventura=s testimony. A review of the testimony offered at the suppression hearing does not support a conclusion that the district court=s credibility finding was clearly erroneous. - 4 - the police station. While at the station, the police determined Howard=s actual identity and that he was a convicted felon wanted on state probation violation warrants. While agents were dealing with Howard, ATF Agent Whorley observed J.Y.=s car parked across the street from the bus terminal. He approached J.Y. and asked for permission to search her car. J.Y. consented. When Whorley asked about the luggage and book bag in the back seat, J.Y. indicated that the items belonged to Howard. Whorley then proceeded to search the book bag and found a handgun and notebook inside. The notebook contained Howard=s actual name. Howard was subsequently indicted for possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation ' 922(g)(1) (2000). one of count of 18 U.S.C. Howard moved unsuccessfully to suppress the gun both on the grounds that police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop Howard originally and that the search of his book bag was unconstitutional. seized and reasonable The court ruled that Howard was properly searched suspicion because to Bonaventura believe had that was Howard articulable involved in criminal activity. The court further held that Howard did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his book bag, which was left in J.Y.=s car, and therefore - 5 - had no standing to challenge the search. suppress, Howard Following the denial of his motion to entered a conditional plea of guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon and was sentenced to fortysix months incarceration. II. Howard first argues that the district court erred in ruling that his initial detention constitutionally permissible. by Bonaventura was We disagree. A police officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigative suspicion, based purposes on provided articulable that facts there and in experience, that criminal activity may be afoot. 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). motions, we review is reasonable light of his Terry v. Ohio, In reviewing rulings on suppression fact findings, including credibility determinations, for clear error and the application of the law to those facts de novo. See Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2000). In challenging the determination of the district court that there was reasonable suspicion, Howard argues that his behavior prior to his detention was insufficient to create a reasonable suspicion of criminal - 6 - activity. Various officers testified that the following behaviors were suspicious: (1) driving into a bus terminal and exiting quickly once uniformed police were spotted; (2) nervous concern for Collins; (3) Howard=s exclamation when the police found Collins=s gun; (4) walking away from the bus station at which he had just arrived; and (5) Howard=s identity. inability to confirm elements of his own The district court found these facts to be true based on the credibility of Bonaventura. It is the role of the fact finder to observe witnesses and weigh their credibility during a pretrial motion to suppress, deference to those findings. 1161, 1169 (4th Cir. 1995). and this court accords great United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d A thorough review of the testimony offered at the suppression hearing does not support a conclusion that the district erroneous. these court=s credibility finding was clearly Furthermore, we find that the behavior described in circumstances suspicion standard. is sufficient to meet the reasonable Accordingly, we find that Howard=s initial seizure and search were proper. III. Howard next contends that the search of his book bag, located in J.Y.=s car, was unconstitutional because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy - 7 - in his belongings. We disagree. The privacy interest that must be established to support standing is an interest in the area searched, not just an interest in the items found. F.2d 360, 374 (4th Cir. 1984). United States v. Manbeck, 744 Ownership of the seized items is by itself insufficient to confer a privacy interest in the area searched. Id. In challenging the determination of the district court that there was no privacy interest, Howard relies on this court=s holdings in United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868 (4th Cir. 1992) and United States v. Block, 590 F.2d 535 (4th Cir. 1978). Howard asserts that under Rusher, an individual can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in goods found in a vehicle if he asserts a right of ownership to those goods. Rusher, only the driver, who presumably had However, in legitimate possession of the vehicle, was found to have a privacy interest in the goods found in the vehicle. Id. at 877. We held that the passengers in the vehicle did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle or its contents. Id. ownership or possessory interest in seized Furthermore, an goods is not dispositive as to whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. The privacy interest that must be established to support standing is an interest in the area searched, not just - 8 - an interest in the items found. Manbeck, 744 F.2d at 374. This court has held that a Aperson who cannot assert a legitimate claim to a vehicle cannot reasonably expect that the vehicle is a private repository for his personal effects, whether or not they are enclosed in some sort of a container . . . .@ United States v. Hargrove, 647 F.2d 411, 412 (4th Cir. 1981). that Howard, as a passenger in legitimate claim to the vehicle. did not have a reasonable J.Y. s car, cannot We find assert a Therefore, we find that Howard expectation belongings left behind in J.Y.=s car. of privacy in his Accordingly, the search and seizure was proper. IV. In sum, we affirm the district court order denying suppression of the evidence recovered because (1) Howard=s initial detention was permissible; and (2) Howard lacks standing to challenge dispense with the search oral of goods argument found because in the J.Y.=s facts car. and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 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.
