996 F.3d 729
5th Cir.2021Background
- Off-duty officer reported a man (Bass) standing by an open trunk in a high‑crime convenience‑store lot and appearing to sell items; a patrol officer (Boudet) was dispatched.
- Boudet approached Bass; Bass admitted selling CDs, hesitated about consent to search, and ultimately opened the trunk to display bootleg CDs and DVDs.
- Officers detained and arrested Bass for unlawfully labeling CDs; a search incident to arrest and prior consent produced a loaded handgun on Bass, drug amounts in a backpack and vehicle, cash, and drug paraphernalia.
- Bass, a felon with 13 prior felony convictions, was federally charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(e); he moved to suppress the statements and all seized evidence.
- The district court denied suppression; Bass waived a jury, stipulated to the suppression‑hearing record, was convicted at a bench trial, and received a 180‑month sentence after the PSR applied an ACCA enhancement and a §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) firearm enhancement.
- Bass appealed denial of suppression, the ACCA enhancement, and the §2K2.1 firearm enhancement; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the stop/detention and probable cause to arrest/search | Tip + officer observations + Bass’s admissions supplied reasonable suspicion and, when CDs were in plain view, probable cause | Stop/detention lacked specific articulable facts; detention was unreasonably prolonged; arrest/search lacked probable cause | Court: Stop supported by tip with indicia of reliability and totality of circumstances; no prolonged detention; probable cause existed after trunk was opened |
| Voluntariness of consent and Miranda | Consent to open trunk was voluntary; statements were made during a Terry stop (noncustodial) so Miranda warnings not required | Consent coerced; statements should be suppressed as custodial/interrogation without Miranda | Court: Consent voluntarily given; statements were noncustodial and admissible |
| ACCA enhancement based on prior Arkansas possession with intent to deliver convictions | Prior convictions qualify as "serious drug offenses" under §924(e) (Shular governs conduct‑based inquiry) | Arkansas statute allegedly broader/vague (e.g., "delivery" could encompass conduct outside federal definition) | Court: Shular controls; Arkansas "delivery" aligns with conduct in §924(e); ACCA enhancement proper |
| Sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (firearm in connection with another felony) | Loaded gun found on Bass while distribution‑amount drugs, packaging materials, and paraphernalia were present — supports four‑level enhancement | Enhancement improper because firearm not connected to another felony / not suspected of drug activity at arrest | Court: Facts and PSR support inference that firearm was connected to drug‑trafficking offense; enhancement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (U.S. 2020) (ACCA predicates determined by whether state offense involves conduct specified in §924(e))
- Kansas v. Glover, 140 S. Ct. 1183 (U.S. 2020) (officer inferences based on training/experience may support reasonable suspicion)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable‑cause "fair probability" standard)
- Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972) (tips with indicia of reliability can justify investigative stops)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (U.S. 2010) (Miranda custody analysis; traffic/Terry stops generally noncustodial)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (U.S. 2009) (vehicle search incident to arrest scope)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1969) (search incident to arrest allows safety/evidence searches)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (limits on searches incident to arrest; reasonableness principles)
- United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2010) (two‑part inquiry for investigative stops)
- United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2004) (no "constitutional stopwatch"; stops assessed for diligent pursuit)
- United States v. Jeffries, 587 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 2009) (firearm enhancement where weapon found in close proximity to drugs/packaging)
- United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir. 2013) (drug‑trafficking charge alone can support §2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement)
- United States v. Prentice, 956 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2020) (post‑Shular treatment of possession‑with‑intent‑to‑deliver as ACCA predicate)