United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 24, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-31047
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THOMAS HECK,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:03-CR-30050-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Heck appeals the denial of his motion to suppress
evidence that was discovered as a result of his arrest for pos-
session with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Heck was
sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised
release.
Heck asserts that the government did not establish that the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited cir-
cumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 04-31047
-2-
law enforcement agents had probable cause to arrest him. He con-
tends that the government did not prove that the informant was
reliable and that the purpose of his meeting with the informant was
to conduct a drug transaction. Heck asserts that his arrest and
the subsequent seizure of evidence from him and from his vehicle
violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment. We review the
district court’s denial of a motion to suppress in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, which in this case is the
government. United States v. Mendoza-Gonzalez, 318 F.3d 663, 666
(5th Cir. 2003). Questions of probable cause and reasonable
suspicion are questions of law. We review legal conclusions de
novo and factual findings for clear error. United States v.
Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d 753, 758 (5th Cir. 1999). We may consider
“evidence admitted at both the suppression hearing and the trial.”
United States v. Jones, 239 F.3d 716, 718 (5th Cir. 2001).
Heck challenges the district court’s determination that
the informant was reliable and its finding that his purpose for
meeting the informant was to conduct a drug transaction. Evidence
of telephonic conversations between Heck and the informant, which
were overheard contemporaneously by the police, were recorded, and
were substantiated by Heck’s conduct, supports the determination
of reliability. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 241-42
(1983). Testimonial evidence from the suppression hearing and
Heck’s trial supports the finding that the purpose of Heck’s
meeting with the informant was to conduct a drug transaction.
No. 04-31047
-3-
Accordingly, the finding is plausible in light of the record as a
whole and thus is not clearly erroneous. See Mendoza-Gonzalez, 318
F.3d at 666; United States v. Duffaut, 314 F.3d 203, 208 (5th Cir.
2002).
Heck argues that, based on the totality of the circumstances,
his arrest was illegal because the police did not have probable
cause to believe he was guilty of an offense before the moment when
he was seized. The evidence supports the district court’s
conclusion that, based on reliable information that was
subsequently confirmed, the police had probable cause to arrest
Heck. See United States v. Ibarra-Sanchez, 199 F.3d 753, 758 (5th
Cir. 1999); United States v. Holloway, 962 F.2d 451, 461 (5th Cir.
1992). Furthermore, under the circumstances, the police had a
reasonable suspicion that Heck was about to commit an offense; the
officers did not violate Heck’s constitutional rights. See Ibarra-
Sanchez, 199 F.3d at 758-60; Holloway, 962 F.2d at 459-60.
Accordingly, Heck’s conviction is AFFIRMED.