October 19, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-2005
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
GEORGE P. AMADO,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Francis J. Boyle, Senior U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
and Barbadoro,* District Judge.
Robert J. Carnes, by Appointment of the Court, for appellant.
Margaret E. Curran, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Zechariah Chafee,
Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief for the United States.
*Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.
Per Curiam. On March 13, 1993, a severe snowstorm hit
Rhode Island. About 4:00 p.m., near North Providence, police
officer Christopher Conaty noticed a small blue Dodge
operating erratically and skidding sideways into the oncoming
traffic lane while attempting a turn. Conaty stopped and
asked the driver, John Revertes, for his license and
registration, which Revertes could not produce. Revertes
said that he was going to the hospital to visit his sick
daughter, but he was unable or unwilling to provide the name
of his daughter. Following standard procedure, the officer
called in Revertes' name and plate number over his radio to
determine whether the vehicle was registered and whether it
had been stolen.
George Amado, the defendant-appellant in this case, was
a passenger in the back seat of the Dodge. Conaty remained
at or near the Dodge while awaiting a response to his call.
Before Conaty received the information from the radio call,
he noticed that Amado was moving his hands furtively in and
out of his leather coat. Conaty also noticed a bulge in
Amado's coat. He asked Amado to remove his hands from his
coat; Amado at first complied but then refused. Conaty drew
his gun and ordered Amado to take his hands out of his coat.
He called for backup assistance, which arrived almost
immediately.
-2-
Conaty and the other officers ordered the occupants out
of the car one at a time. Because he was seated in back,
Amado was the last to get out. As Amado exited the car,
Conaty grabbed him by the back of the jacket to lead him
around the car to be frisked. Amado lunged at Conaty,
shrugged out of his jacket, and fled. Amado was apprehended
after a chase. During the struggle, a clear bag containing
what appeared (and turned out) to be narcotics--actually,
both cocaine and heroin--fell to the ground. The bulge in
his jacket had been caused by a cellular phone and a beeper.
The entire encounter took between five and ten minutes.
Amado was indicted by a grand jury on April 1, 1993.
His motion to suppress the drugs was heard and denied on
June 21, 1993, after the facts set forth above had been
adduced. Four days later he entered a conditional plea of
guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute
cocaine and one count of possession with intent to distribute
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C).
Amado reserved his right to appeal the denial of the
suppression motion. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). On
September 10, 1993, he received a sentence of 27 months'
imprisonment.
On this appeal, Amado challenges the district judge's
denial of his suppression motion. We think it is obvious
-3-
that the seizure of Amado's drugs did not violate the Fourth
Amendment. Only three points raised require comment.
The initial stop of the car in which Amado was riding
was lawful. The district court found that the police officer
witnessed a traffic violation in the midst of unusually
hazardous driving conditions. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440
U.S. 648, 659, 661 (1979) (finding a traffic violation
grounds for a stop); United States v. Lott, 870 F.2d 778, 784
(1st Cir. 1989) (same). A district court's findings of fact
at a suppression hearing are reviewed for clear error, United
States v. Kimball, 25 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1994); here there
is no indication of error at all. Conaty might have been
remiss in his duties had he not stopped the car.
The length and scope of the detention after the car was
stopped were likewise justified. The entire episode took
less than ten minutes. When Conaty noticed Amado's
suspicious behavior, he had not yet received the results of
the radio check on the vehicle registration. Revertes had
not produced a valid registration, and Conaty could properly
detain the vehicle until he found out whether the car had
been stolen. There is nothing in the Constitution that
requires a police officer who halts a car driven by one
individual to ignore suspicious indications of other criminal
activity or a threat to the officer from a passenger.
-4-
Once Conaty witnessed Amado's furtive actions, he had
grounds to stop and frisk him. The bulge in Amado's coat,
his failure to remove his hand, and his furtive movements
permitted Conaty reasonably to conclude that Amado might be
armed and dangerous. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S.
106, 111-12 (1977) (finding reasonable suspicion to order
defendant out of a car and frisk him based on a traffic
violation and a bulge in his jacket). At that point, Conaty
was justified in ordering the passengers out of the car and
attempting to frisk Amado. We find that each step in the
process that led to the seizure of drugs from Amado was
justified.
Affirmed.
-5-