[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 2, 2007
No. 06-15509 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00095-CR-T-N
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DEXTER WAYNE SNIPE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(August 2, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dexter Wayne Snipe appeals his convictions of possession with the intent to
distribute cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), possession of marijuana, see id. §
844(a), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, see 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and possession of a firearm by a felon, see id.
§ 922(g)(1). Snipe argues that the district court erroneously denied his motion to
suppress evidence obtained during searches of his home, person, and vehicle. We
affirm.
On November 1, 2005, Detective Daniel Motley obtained from a state
district judge a warrant to search Snipe’s residence and vehicles. On November 4,
2005, members of the Tuskegee Police Department went to Snipe’s residence to
execute the search warrant. Tuskegee police were also aware that there was an
outstanding federal arrest warrant for Snipe.
Snipe was sitting in a vehicle parked in front of the house when the officers
arrived. When they pulled Snipe out of the vehicle, a silver handgun fell from the
vehicle. The officers placed Snipe under arrest and searched his person. That
search uncovered another handgun that was tied around Snipe’s waist with rope or
string.
The officers then searched the vehicle and residence. The search of the
vehicle uncovered the following items: several ounces of marijuana sitting on the
seat of the driver, two bags containing cocaine base in the glove compartment, a
2
pill bottle containing assorted pills in the glove compartment, and an SKS assault
rifle in the trunk of the vehicle. The search of the residence uncovered a handgun
in a bedroom and a shotgun in another bedroom.
A federal grand jury returned an indictment on four charges agaisnt Snipe
who pleaded not guilty. Although counsel was appointed to represent Snipe,
counsel assisted Snipe on stand-by while Snipe attempted to represent himself.
Before trial, Snipe moved pro se to suppress the evidence seized from his person,
vehicle, and residence.
After the district court concluded that the search warrant was not supported
by probable cause, the district court granted in part and denied in part Snipe’s
motion to suppress. The district court suppressed the handgun and shotgun found
in Snipe’s residence and the SKS rifle found in the truck of Snipe’s vehicle. The
district court determined that the handgun found on Snipe’s person, the handgun
that fell out of Snipe’s vehicle, the marijuana found on the front seat of the vehicle,
and the cocaine base and pills found in the glove compartment of the vehicle were
admissible. Snipe proceeded to trial and was convicted.
Snipe maintains that the district court erred by not suppressing all evidence
obtained as a result of the search of his residence, person, and vehicle. Snipe
argues that the search was unreasonable and violated his Fourth Amendment rights
3
because it was based on an invalid “no-knock” warrant that was not supported by
evidence that he had a history of violent crime or possession of firearms. Snipe
does not dispute that he was lawfully arrested based on a federal warrant.
We review the denial of a motion to suppress under a mixed standard of
review. We review findings of fact for clear error and the application of the law to
those facts de novo. United States v. Rhind, 289 F.3d 690, 693 (11th Cir. 2002).
Snipe’s argument that his motion to suppress should have been granted in its
entirety fails. Because the district court already determined that the search warrant
was invalid, Snipe’s argument about the “no-knock” aspect of the warrant is
meritless. The district court correctly determined that the disputed evidence
satisfied exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The
district court correctly concluded that the handgun obtained during the search of
Snipe’s person should not be suppressed because it was obtained in a search
incident to the lawful arrest of Snipe based on a valid federal warrant. See Chimel
v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762–63, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 2040 (1969). The evidence
obtained from the glove compartment and driver’s seat was also admissible
because it was obtained in a search incident to Snipe’s arrest. See New York v.
Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 459–61, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2863–64 (1981). The handgun that
fell from the driver’s side of the vehicle when the door of the vehicle was opened
4
was admissible under the “plain-view doctrine.” See Coolidge v. New Hampshire,
403 U.S. 443, 465–66, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 2037–38 (1971). The district court properly
admitted this evidence.
Snipe’s conviction is
AFFIRMED.
5