US v. Scotty Carico, No. 07-4745 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4745 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SCOTTY LEE CARICO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:07-cr-00006-jpj) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 19, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vaughan C. Jones, JOHNSON & JONES, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Scotty possession with Lee Carico intent was to convicted distribute by a jury methamphetamine of and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Carico imprisonment. was sentenced to a total of 138 months Finding no error, we affirm. On appeal, Carico contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We review the factual findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. F.3d 328, 337 (4th Cir. 2008). light most favorable to the United States v. Branch, 537 The evidence is construed in the prevailing party below. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006). Carico acknowledging acquired in Arizona, 384 however, are initially the presence violation U.S. not of contends of the a firearm Fifth 436 (1966). required to that in Amendment Law his his statement vehicle and Miranda enforcement administer Miranda was v. officers, warnings to everyone they question or suspect. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977) (per curiam). Rather, Miranda is only implicated custody. 2007). when officers question an individual who is in United States v. Jamison, 509 F.3d 623, 628 (4th Cir. An individual is in custody for purposes of receiving 2 Miranda protection . . . [when] there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (per curiam) (quoting Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495). Here, statement arrest at or Carico issue was not the officer as otherwise in restrained custody had his administration of Miranda warnings. when not he placed freedom made him the under requiring the See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440 (1984) (holding one temporarily detained in traffic stop is not in custody for Miranda purposes); United States v. Sullivan, 138 F.3d 126, 131 (4th Cir. 1998) (same). Additionally, rather than enforcement Carico s the statement result officer. of See any United was spontaneously formal questioning States v. rendered by Wright, a 991 law F.2d 1182, 1186 (4th Cir. 1993) ( [S]pontaneous statements [that are] not the product of interrogation [are] not barred by the Fifth Amendment. ). Therefore, the district court did not err in refusing to suppress Carico s statement. Carico also contends that the warrantless search of his vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment. He does not assert that the traffic stop was invalid, but argues that his detention and the However, search initiation a of of the law enforcement the passenger vehicle officer may compartment 3 search of were conduct a a improper. protective lawfully stopped automobile where the officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer in believing that [a] suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons within Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049-50 (1983) the vehicle. (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968)). It is undisputed that Carico was stopped by law enforcement because an unauthorized weapon was visible in his vehicle. The officer was therefore permitted to perform protective search of the vehicle to secure the weapon. a United States v. Elston, 479 F.3d 314, 320 (4th Cir. 2007) (search of vehicle in Terry stop authorized if officer has reasonable belief that suspect is dangerous and may gain control of weapons in vehicle, even if suspect is restrained at the time). Moreover, Carico s disclosure that there was a firearm on the front passenger seat further highlighted the danger Carico posed to the officer. Thus, the initial search of the vehicle for weapons was proper. Carico additionally argues that the officer did not have probable cause to perform a more thorough search of the vehicle, including its trunk. However, it is well established that, [i]f a car is readily mobile and probable cause exists to believe it contains contraband, an officer may search the 4 car without a warrant. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 (1999) (per curiam) (quoting Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 (1996) (per curiam)). The scope of the search authorized under the automobile exception is no broader and no narrower than that which warrant. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 (1982). probable cause justifies could the be authorized search of a pursuant lawfully to a If stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. Id. The Supreme Court has defined the test for probable cause as whether, given all the circumstances, . . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). The law enforcement officer found multiple weapons and a large quantity vehicle. of cash during his initial search of the Under these circumstances, there was more than a fair probability that either controlled substances or other weapons were present. Considering the nature of the suspected contraband, the scope of the officer s search was appropriate. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of Carico s vehicle. 5 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 6
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.
