Defendant Jorge Castaneda pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii). Castaneda reserved the right to apрeal the denial of his motion to suppress contraband seized from his vehicle. The police had probable cause to believe Castaneda’s vehicle cоntained contraband; therefore, the warrantless search of Castaneda’s vehicle was permissible pursuant to the so-called “automobile exception.” Consequently, we affirm the denial of Castaneda’s motion to suppress.
I. Background
The Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) suspected Demetrio Garcia of selling methamphetamine in northwest Arkansas. Using a lawful wiretap on Garcia’s phone, law enforcement intercepted several conversations between Garcia and a man identifying himself as “Jorge.” During these convеrsations, Garcia and “Jorge” discussed methamphetamine transactions often using code phrases. Each time, “Jorge” called Garcia using the same cell phone. On оne occasion, Garcia directed “Jorge” to go to a residence in Springdale, Arkansas, that police already suspected for methamphetamine sales. Following this conversation, police observed a vehicle registered to Jorge Castaneda arrive at the residence. The police deduced that the “Jorgе” from the phone conversations was Jorge Castaneda.
Weeks later, Garcia and Jorge were heard discussing a future sale in which Jorge would purchase a pound of methamphetamine from Garcia on behalf of an individual who would be coming to town. The next day, Garcia and Jorge arranged a meeting at Garcia’s apartment. Poliсe subsequently observed Jorge Castaneda at Garcia’s apartment. After Castaneda left the apartment, police stopped his vehicle for a traffic violation. Although a drug dog alerted to the vehicle, no drugs were found.
On the following day, police intercepted yet another conversation between Garcia and Jorge, in whiсh Jorge stated that the buyer of the pound of methamphetamine had arrived. Jorge also stated that he had the money. Garcia and Jorge initially agreed to meet at thе Dollar Store to perform the drug deal. However, a subsequent call from Garcia, using heavily coded language, changed the location to Garcia’s apartment. Officers arrived at Garcia’s apartment and observed Jorge Castaneda’s vehicle parked there. They then observed Castaneda enter his vehicle and leave the apartment complex. At this time, the DEA agent involved in the investigation called for Castaneda’s arrest and the search of his vehicle because there was probablе cause to believe that he had committed a felony drug offense and that contraband would be discovered in the vehicle. Police stopped Castaneda’s vehicle and arrested Castaneda.
Castaneda’s vehicle was taken to the Rogers Police Department and searched without a warrant. In the search, police fоund methamphetamine, a cellular phone, and a handgun. The cellular phone matched the phone used by the individual identifying himself as “Jorge” to make calls regarding drug transactions with Garcia.
Castaneda moved to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle, contending that (1) the police lacked probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband; and (2) the search of the vehicle was not a valid search incident to arrest. The *893 district court 1 denied the motion, finding that there was probable сause to search the vehicle based upon all of the facts known to the police. Castaneda pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(viii), reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. He was sentenced to 135 months’ imprisonment, and he now appeаls the district court’s ruling. We hold that the police had probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained contraband and therefore affirm.
II. Discussion
When reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress, we review de novo the legal conclusion that probable cause existed while reviewing the underlying factual determinatiоns for clear error. Ornelas
v. United States,
One exception to the general rule is the sо-called “automobile exception.”.
See generally Carroll v. United States,
The officers had probable cause to believe that Jorge Castaneda was transporting drugs in his vehicle on the dаy of his arrest. The police had intercepted numerous phone calls between Garcia and a man identifying himself as “Jorge” regarding drug transactions. The police identifiеd the “Jorge” from the intercepted conversations as Jorge Castaneda because the police had observed a vehicle registered to Castaneda аt a location that Garcia had earlier specified to meet “Jorge” on the phone. The police intercepted calls between the two men discussing the sale of a pound of methamphetamine. Following the call arranging a meeting at Garcia’s apartment, officers observed Castaneda at Garcia’s apartment. In addition, the police intercepted a call discussing the one pound sale and arranging a location. A short time later, the officers intercepted another call changing the location for the deal to Garcia’s apartment. When surveillance officers arrived, Castaneda’s truck was parked at Garcia’s apartment, аnd he left shortly thereafter. Given this evidence, law enforcement had probable cause to believe that methamphetamine would be found in Castaneda’s vehicle.
Wells,
In the alternative, Castanedа contends that the search of his vehicle was invalid because it was not a valid search incident to arrest pursuant to
New York v. Belton,
In conclusion, we hold that there was probable cause to believe that Castaneda would have methamphetamine in his vehicle. Consequently, the search of his vehicle was valid under our decision in Wells, and we affirm the district court’s denial of Castaneda’s motion to suppress.
Notes
. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.