Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

. C UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 04-10444
D.C. No. CR-03-01126-DGC
Plaintiff- Appellee,
v.
JUDGMENT
JASON LEE BROWN, ‘
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly
submitted. _
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED.
Filed and entered 07/05/05
Arnue ceiev L Q { t
ATTEST; · ;»’/W
CATHY §CA‘l;TER`éON~-
Clerk r· GU'? ____, i
z -_, ( I
by: .4.1/ . . . .
Deputy Gly? t»·
Case 2:03-cr—01126-DGC Document 59 Filed 07/27/2005 Page 1 of 4 C

Nor Fon PUBLICATION -*0*- 05 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS CATHY A CMTERSON CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 0-5- 000*** 0** APPMS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 04-10444
Plaintiff- Appellee, D.C. No. CR-03-01126-DGC
v.
MEMoRANDUM*
JASON LEE BROWN,
Defendant — Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submited June 17, 2005**
San Francisco, California
Before: REAVLEY"", T.G. NELSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Jason Lee Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his
suppression motion. Brown was convicted of one count of possession of stolen
mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 pursuant to a guilty plea that expressly
°` This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited
to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
ll This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).
M The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior United States Circuit Judge
for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Case 2:03-cr—01126-DGC Document 59 Filed 07/27/2005 Page 2 of 4

preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling. We exercise jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court on the ground that the l
search was supported by reasonable suspicion.
A seizure does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it “was supported by
reasonable and articulable suspicion that [the defendant] had committed, or was
about to commit, a crime.” United States v. Summers, 268 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir.
2001). Here, the 7-11 convenience store clerk’s 911 call provided the officers
with reasonable suspicion to stop Brown. We have held that "[l]or a third—party
report of suspected criminal activity to form the basis of an officer’s reasonable
suspicion, that report must possess sufficient indicia of reliabi1ity." United States
v. Femandez—CastilI0, 324 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). The 7-11 Clerk’s 911
call was not anonymous. The clerk not only gave her name, but also her work
address and telephone number and she remained on the line to answer all the
operator’s questions. Additionally, the clerk’s 911 call evidenced extremely
detailed, first-hand, contemporaneous observations of her suspicions that a crime
had almost just occurred. It is irrelevant that Brown’s credit cards were not
actually stolen. See United States v. Rodriguez, 869 F.2d 479, 483 (9th Cir. 1989)
(noting that seemingly innocent behavior will frequently provide the basis for a
showing of reasonable suspicion).
`
Case 2:03-cr—01126-DGC Document 59 Filed 07/27/2005 Page 3 of 4

Accordingly, thc judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
ATRUE-` .OB.Y 7; Q,
A'IT§$T jj /16*7AC
A.i`cAti·Ené6N
Bf ·? ' · ourt," s
V No
/ ·~·‘ I
by: _ Ai _-
eputy Cie "
I
3
Case 2:03-cr—01126-DGC Document 59 Filed 07/27/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01126-DGC

Document 59

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01126-DGC

Document 59

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01126-DGC

Document 59

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cr-01126-DGC

Document 59

Filed 07/27/2005

Page 4 of 4