United States v. Hambrick
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1120
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hambrick pleaded guilty conditionally to possessing with intent to distribute at least five grams of cocaine base, reserving a suppression appeal; district court sentenced him to 120 months and eight years' supervised release.
- A confidential informant with a history of reliability provided tips that Hambrick was in Davenport selling crack cocaine and would be driving a dark Monte Carlo with Illinois plates and a missing gas-tank door.
- Davenport officers surveilled Hambrick, boxed in his car to stop him after confirming his license was suspended, and arrested him for driving with a suspended license.
- At the stop site, marijuana residue was found in the car; a K-9 sniff led to a digital scale with cocaine residue in the trunk.
- At the station, Hambrick was read Miranda rights, was strip-searched after police indicated cocaine residue was found, and crack cocaine was recovered from between his buttocks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | Hambrick | Hambrick | Stop supported by license suspension and informant corroboration |
| Whether the automobile search incident to arrest was valid under Gant or the automobile exception | Hambrick | Hambrick | Not valid under Gant but valid under automobile exception due to probable cause |
| Whether the search of Hambrick's person was valid as a consent/station-house search | Hambrick | Hambrick | Search incident to arrest and station-house search valid; consent factors considered |
| Whether Hambrick's incriminating statement was voluntary and admissible | Hambrick | Hambrick | Statement voluntary under totality of circumstances; Miranda warnings given |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bell, 480 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2007) (reaffirms standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- United States v. Escamilla, 301 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2002) (traffic stop supported by probable cause despite pretext)
- Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (S. Ct. 2009) (limits search-incident-to-arrest to cases with access or evidence relevance)
- United States v. Edwards, U.S. 801 (U.S. 1974) (allows on-scene/arrival detentions to accommodate searches later)
- United States v. Morrison, 594 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2010) (informant reliability and corroboration can establish probable cause)
- United States v. Aguilera, 625 F.3d 482 (8th Cir. 2010) (informant specificity and corroboration support probable cause for vehicle search)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 414 F.3d 837 (8th Cir. 2005) (reinforces automobile exception probable cause standard)
- United States v. Harris, 617 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2010) (credibility determinations are reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Williams, 477 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2007) (court treatment of self-seizure and contraband under officer initiative)
- United States v. Esquivias, 416 F.3d 696 (8th Cir. 2005) (totality-of-circumstances approach to consent)