United States of America v. Praylor Newman

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-4083
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PRAYLOR NEWMAN,
Appellant
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Crim. No. 02-cr-00539-01 )
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 16, 2004
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 21, 2004)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
A jury found defendant Newman guilty of 15 counts of an indictment
charging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 922(g)(1), 924(a)(1)(A), 924(e), 1503 and

-- 1 of 4 --

2
1512(b). He was sentenced to 293-months incarceration.
In his brief, defendant states: “There is one issue raised for review in this
case. The issue is an appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress physical evidence.”
Specifically, the challenged evidence is two handguns found in a vehicle driven by
defendant. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the defendant’s motion
to suppress.
Police officers testified that defendant and a female companion were
observed as they left a tavern and then drove erratically along the road for some distance.
Because of previous contacts with defendant, the police were aware that defendant had
been guilty of a number of infractions, particularly of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle
Code. On the evening in question, the police learned that the defendant’s driver’s license
had been suspended and that the license plate on his van was not the one that had been
issued for that vehicle.
Based on these factors, the police confronted defendant as he drove the
vehicle into a parking area near an apartment building. After learning that defendant did
not have registration or insurance documentation, and further that the female passenger
did not have a driver’s license, the officers determined that the vehicle should be
impounded.
Following municipal policy, the police conducted an inventory of the
vehicle’s contents. On opening the rear door, one of the officers saw the handles of two

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Glock handguns projecting from a bag on the floor. Defendant was then arrested and the
vehicle was towed to the impoundment area.
In South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), the Supreme Court
held that inventory searches were reasonable when (1) the vehicle was impounded or in
lawful police custody, (2) the search was conducted pursuant to standard police inventory
procedures, and (3) the process was aimed at securing the car and its contents. All of
those requirements were met in this case.
The District Court found that because of the violations of Pennsylvania law
and the fact that the vehicle could not be legally driven, the police properly impounded it.
According to departmental policies, an inventory was to be done before the vehicle was
towed away and therefore the search in this case was appropriate. The District Court
concluded that in these circumstances, the defendant’s rights under the Fourth
Amendment had not been violated.
Our review of the record convinces us that the District Court’s ruling was
correct. The vehicle was lawfully taken into police custody at the time of the inventory
search. See Commonwealth v. Martinson, 533 A.2d 750, 137-38 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987).
Furthermore, all of the requirements of Opperman were complied with and the
information available to the police officers before stopping the vehicle was sufficient to
present probable cause.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
In any event, in view of the other evidence, if there was error, it was
harmless.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 4 of 4 --