UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4491
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAJA CHARLES JABBOUR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (3:06-cr-00019-nkm)
Submitted: November 30, 2007 Decided: December 21, 2007
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Kenneth Zwerling, Andrea L. Moseley, ZWERLING, LEIBIG &
MOSELEY, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Nancy S. Healey, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raja Charles Jabbour appeals his conviction after
pleading guilty to possession of child pornography, coercion and
enticement of a minor, and attempted receipt of child pornography.
He reserved the right to challenge the district court’s decision
denying his motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of his
warrantless arrest in Ohio in January 2004. Finding no error, we
affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s factual findings
underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and
its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Johnson, 400 F.3d
187, 193 (4th Cir. 2005). The Fourth Amendment protects an
individual from being arrested without probable cause. Street v.
Surdyka, 492 F.2d 368, 371 (4th Cir. 1974). So long as the arrest
is supported by probable cause, there is no constitutional
violation. Id. “Probable cause to justify an arrest arises when
facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge . . . are
sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable
caution, in believing, in the circumstances shown, that the suspect
has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.”
Porterfield v. Lott, 156 F.3d 563, 569 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal
quotation omitted). “The question to be answered is whether an
objectively reasonable police officer, placed in the circumstances,
had a ‘reasonable ground for belief of guilt’ that was
- 2 -
‘particularized with respect to the person to be searched or
seized.’” United States v. Humphries, 372 F.3d 653, 657-58 (4th
Cir. 2004) (quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 372-73
(2003)). All of the circumstances known to the officer at the time
of the arrest are considered in order to determine whether there
was probable cause. Taylor v. Waters, 81 F.3d 429, 434 (4th Cir.
1996). Probable cause must be supported by more than a mere
suspicion, but evidence sufficient to convict is not required.
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 (1963). The arresting
officer’s belief need not be correct or even more likely true than
false, so long as it is reasonable. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730,
742 (1983).
After reviewing the briefs and joint appendix, we find
the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress
evidence. We therefore affirm based on the reasoning of the
district court. United States v. Jabbour, No. 3:06-cr-00019-nkm
(W.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2006).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -