UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4935
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAJUAN CARTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00164-ELH-2)
Submitted: March 27, 2012 Decided: April 6, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard B. Bardos, SCHULMAN, TREEM & GILDEN, P.A., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Debra L. Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dajuan Carter appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion to suppress evidence seized following the stop of a
car in which he was a passenger. Carter argues that the
suppression hearing testimony of the police detectives regarding
an observed traffic infraction was incredible, that the alleged
traffic violation never occurred, and that the stop was
pretextual. For the following reasons, we affirm.
This Court reviews the district court’s factual
findings underlying the denial of a motion to suppress for clear
error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Grossman, 400 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2005). We give particular
deference “to a district court’s credibility determinations, for
it is the role of the district court to observe witnesses and
weigh their credibility during a pre-trial motion to suppress.”
United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When a
suppression motion has been denied, this Court construes the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
Grossman, 400 F.3d at 216. A traffic stop of a vehicle
constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment
and is permissible if the officer has probable cause to believe
a traffic violation has occurred, regardless of the officer’s
2
subjective motivations. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806,
809-10, 813-19 (1996).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not err when it determined that the
inconsistencies in the detectives’ testimony are immaterial, and
that probable cause supported the stop of the vehicle in which
Carter was a passenger. Furthermore, we conclude there is no
basis to conclude the district court clearly erred in making its
credibility determination. Therefore, we affirm the district
court’s judgment. 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
3