FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30116
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00091-LRS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOHNATHON JAMES BARNETT, aka
Jonathan James Barnett,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 12, 2011 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Johnathon Barnett timely appeals from the district court’s denial
of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argues that a police officer stopped
him without reasonable suspicion and searched his truck without probable cause.
*
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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Reviewing de novo, United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010)
(per curiam), cert. denied, 2010 WL 3485625 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2010) (No. 10-6243),
we affirm.
The police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant. See United
States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985) ("[I]f police have a reasonable
suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter
was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry1
stop may be made to investigate that suspicion."). The officer noticed Defendant’s
truck parked at a convenience store within a few miles of an armed robbery that
had taken place just two hours before. Defendant’s truck, like the robber’s, was a
white, older model 1/4 ton pick-up with rust spots and its license plate began with
an "A." Defendant, like the robber, was a white male, 6'0 to 6'2 tall, with dark hair
and a goatee. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had a reasonable
suspicion that Defendant committed the robbery.
The police officer also had probable cause to think that Defendant had
illegal drugs in his truck when she searched it. After a search of Defendant’s
person, which Defendant does not challenge, the officer found two vials of a kind
commonly used to store illegal drugs. Inside of one of the vials, the officer found a
1
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
2
white residue. That evidence gave the officer probable cause to think that there
were more drugs in the truck. Under the automobile search exception, the officer
therefore could conduct a warrantless search of Defendant’s truck for drugs. See
United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Under the
automobile exception to the warrant requirement, police may conduct a warrantless
search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains
evidence of a crime.").
AFFIRMED.
3