United States v. Sadler

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

SHAWN SADLER, a/k/a Tangulifu M. Barber, a/k/a Carlos Watts,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:04-cr-00330-CMC-5)

Submitted: June 24, 2009 Decided: September 9, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William W. Watkins, Sr., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Nancy C.
Wicker, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Shawn Sadler of conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute and to distribute five kilograms or

more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and the

district court sentenced Sadler to 240 months’ imprisonment. On

appeal, Sadler’s counsel contends that the district court erred

in denying the motion to suppress currency seized from the

vehicle Sadler was driving and all other evidence, including

Sadler’s statements, obtained by law enforcement officers after

the vehicle search. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review the factual findings underlying the denial

of a motion to suppress for clear error and the court’s legal

conclusions de novo. United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 337

(4th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 943 (2009). The

evidence is construed in the light most favorable to the

prevailing party below. United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690,

704 (4th Cir. 2006).

“[T]he protections of the Fourth Amendment do not bear

on every encounter between a police officer and a member of the

public; it is only when a ‘search’ or a ‘seizure’ has occurred

that the Fourth Amendment comes into play.” United States v.

McCoy, 513 F.3d 405, 411 (4th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert.

denied, 128 S. Ct. 2492 (2008). Thus, when the deputy

approached Sadler, identified himself, and inquired why Sadler

2
was in the neighborhood, a seizure had not yet occurred. See

id. (“If all that is involved is the officer approaching a

person, announcing that he is an officer, and asking if the

person would be willing to answer some questions, then no

reasonable suspicion is required because no seizure has

occurred.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted));

see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 n.16 (1968) (stating a

seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment does not occur until an

“officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has

in some way restrained the liberty of” the individual).

Moreover, “the police can stop and briefly detain a

person for investigative purposes if the officer has a

reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that

criminal activity ‘may be afoot,’ even if the officer lacks

probable cause.” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)

(quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 30). Based on the totality of the

circumstances, the deputy had a reasonable suspicion to continue

his inquiry beyond the initial encounter with Sadler. See

United States v. Perkins, 363 F.3d 317, 321 (4th Cir. 2004)

(considering the totality of the circumstances, “giv[ing] due

weight to common sense judgments reached by officers in light of

their experience and training” in assessing Terry stop).

Finally, the search was proper as Sadler voluntarily gave his

consent. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219

3
(1973) (“[O]ne of the specifically established exceptions to the

requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search

that is conducted pursuant to consent.”). Therefore, we

conclude the district court properly denied the motion to

suppress.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. We deny Sadler’s motion to file a pro se supplemental

brief. 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