United States v. Omar A. Mudie, 97 F.3d 1450, 4th Cir. (1996)
United States v. Omar A. Mudie, 97 F.3d 1450, 4th Cir. (1996)
3d 1450
During the initial search, the police also examined Mudie's key ring, which had
a "Mazda" key. They discovered one Mazda car parked near the apartment.
When officers searched the car, they found a loaded .38 semi-automatic
handgun in the map pocket behind the driver's seat, and Mudie's checkbook on
the floorboard. Mudie was indicted on two counts of distributing crack, one
count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and one count of
possession of crack with intent to distribute. He moved to suppress a number of
items of evidence, including the crack and cocaine discovered during the search
of the apartment, an oral statement he made following his arrest, and the
weapon recovered during the search of his car. The district court (Judge
Clarke) denied the motion to suppress. Mudie's first trial ended in a hung jury.
At his second trial, the district court (Judge Jackson) refused to grant Mudie's
renewed motion to suppress, except as to the postarrest statement. Near the
close of the government's evidence, the district court decided that the gun had
been improperly admitted, and instructed the jury to disregard it. Judge Jackson
found that the police did not have probable cause to search Mudie's car; the
court recognized that the police could have conducted an inventory search in
the interest of safeguarding Mudie's property, but found that their actual motive
was to find evidence against Mudie. The court cautioned the jury:
5
During
this trial you have heard testimony about the search of the defendant's
automobile and the recovery of a gun. Additionally, you have heard testimony about
the role that a firearm plays in the distribution of illegal narcotics. I instruct you that
you are to totally disregard the testimony, as well as the firearm exhibit that was
introduced in this record. The testimony that was introduced about the firearm, the
search of the vehicle, as well as the exhibit, should not be considered in any way in
your determination of a verdict in this case.
6 you to in any way consider this evidence I am asking you to disregard would be
For
a violation of the oath that you have taken as a juror, and I will give you the same
instruction again prior to the time that you begin to deliberate.
7
13
Having determined that the search of Mudie's car was permissible, we must
conclude that there was no basis for exclusion of the evidence seized from that
vehicle. Consequently, the district court erred in suppressing evidence of the
gun, and any reference by the prosecutor to the improperly-suppressed evidence
(inadvertent or otherwise) was not error. This leads to the further conclusion
that the district court erred in granting Mudie a new trial on these bases.
Accordingly, the decision below is
14
REVERSED.
Because the search in this case was justified by the automobile exception to the
Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, we need not reach the question of
whether it might also have been proper as an inventory search