USA V. WILLIAM SPRINGFIELD, SR., No. 16-30229 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-30229 D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00121-SPW-1 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM WOODROW SPRINGFIELD, Sr., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 2, 2017** Seattle, Washington Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Defendant William Springfield appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Even if Springfield has standing to challenge the search of the vehicle, the motion to suppress the evidence obtained through that search was properly denied. The district court found that the search of the car would have occurred anyway, even if Springfield had not been arrested and searched. That finding was not clearly erroneous. The officers testified that an inventory search of a stolen vehicle was standard procedure. See United States v. Mota, 982 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir. 1993). It is not disputed that the vehicle had been reported stolen. Because the methamphetamine “ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means,” the inevitable discovery doctrine applies. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984). AFFIRMED. 2

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.