United States of America v. Johnathon James Barnett, aka Jonathan James Barnett

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNATHON JAMES BARNETT, aka
Jonathan James Barnett,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-30116
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00091-LRS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suko, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 12, 2011**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Johnathon Barnett timely appeals from the district court’s denial
of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argues that a police officer stopped
him without reasonable suspicion and searched his truck without probable cause.
FILED
JAN 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).1
2
Reviewing de novo, United States v. Borowy, 595 F.3d 1045, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010)
(per curiam), cert. denied, 2010 WL 3485625 (U.S. Dec. 6, 2010) (No. 10-6243),
we affirm.
The police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant. See United
States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985) ("[I]f police have a reasonable
suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts, that a person they encounter
was involved in or is wanted in connection with a completed felony, then a Terry1
stop may be made to investigate that suspicion."). The officer noticed Defendant’s
truck parked at a convenience store within a few miles of an armed robbery that
had taken place just two hours before. Defendant’s truck, like the robber’s, was a
white, older model 1/4 ton pick-up with rust spots and its license plate began with
an "A." Defendant, like the robber, was a white male, 6'0 to 6'2 tall, with dark hair
and a goatee. Under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had a reasonable
suspicion that Defendant committed the robbery.
The police officer also had probable cause to think that Defendant had
illegal drugs in his truck when she searched it. After a search of Defendant’s
person, which Defendant does not challenge, the officer found two vials of a kind
commonly used to store illegal drugs. Inside of one of the vials, the officer found a

-- 2 of 3 --

3
white residue. That evidence gave the officer probable cause to think that there
were more drugs in the truck. Under the automobile search exception, the officer
therefore could conduct a warrantless search of Defendant’s truck for drugs. See
United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Under the
automobile exception to the warrant requirement, police may conduct a warrantless
search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains
evidence of a crime.").
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --