United States v. Gregory Rucker

Citations: 138 F.3d 697; 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 4950; 1998 WL 113219Docket: 97-2468

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; March 16, 1998; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Gregory Rucker entered a conditional guilty plea for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and was sentenced to 37 months in prison followed by four years of supervised release. He appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during his arrest. The appeal was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, which determined that the officers had probable cause to arrest Rucker, thus justifying the seizure of the drugs.

On August 30, 1996, Officer Douglas Theobald received a tip from a reliable confidential informant indicating that Rucker was at Weezy's Tavern with cocaine in his shoe. The informant identified Rucker and provided a description of his clothing and vehicle. Theobald, familiar with Rucker from previous arrests, corroborated the informant's information and contacted other officers. 

Upon locating Rucker, Officers Moore and Couve conducted a stop and frisk. Rucker resisted, claiming violations of his rights, but was handcuffed, and officers removed his oversized shoes, finding three baggies containing 21 grams of crack inside. Rucker also had two pagers and $380 in cash in his Cadillac. After being read his Miranda rights, Rucker admitted to selling crack on that day and multiple times in the preceding weeks.

The district court denied Mr. Rucker's motion to suppress evidence, finding two bases for its decision: probable cause for his arrest and the legality of a Terry stop and pat-down search by the police. The appellate review of probable cause is conducted de novo, but the district court's factual findings are accepted unless clearly erroneous. Mr. Rucker argued that the police lacked probable cause since he was approached on a public sidewalk during daylight without engaging in any suspicious behavior. He contended that the information from a confidential informant was untrustworthy, failing to meet the reliability standards established in previous case law, particularly citing United States v. Roberson, which involved an anonymous tip lacking sufficient detail to justify an investigative stop. 

In evaluating the existence of probable cause, it is established that police must reasonably believe a crime has been committed to make a warrantless arrest. The assessment is based on the totality of circumstances and requires a practical evaluation of the information available to law enforcement. Informants' tips can vary in reliability, and officers must have trustworthy information to justify an arrest. The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for a flexible approach to evaluating probable cause to balance law enforcement needs and citizens' rights.

An informant's reliability can be established through their past accuracy, independent police verification, or other methods. In this case, the informant had a proven track record with Officer Theobald, providing detailed, accurate information previously. The officer was familiar with the area and Mr. Rucker's criminal history, having previously arrested him and conducted traffic stops involving him. This background allowed the officer to evaluate the informant’s tip effectively. Mr. Rucker had recently been apprehended with cocaine concealed in his shoe, which matched the informant's description of his modus operandi. The combination of the informant's reliability, the officer's knowledge of the area, and Mr. Rucker's history provided probable cause for the arrest. Consequently, the search of Mr. Rucker's shoe was deemed justified as a search incident to arrest, leading to the affirmation of the district court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress.

Officer Jackson informed Officer Theobald about Mr. Rucker's prior arrest and condition of his shoe, facilitating information exchange due to their overlapping jurisdictions. Officer Theobald subsequently confirmed Mr. Rucker's presence at a specific location, identified him, and alerted Officers Moore and Couve. He noted that a Cadillac was parked in the Urban League parking lot nearby. During a suppression hearing, Mr. Rucker contested the inventory search but did not pursue this argument on appeal. The excerpt references the Supreme Court's decision in Gates, which emphasizes the importance of evaluating informants' tips and the totality-of-the-circumstances approach, citing Ker v. California as a precedent where the police had probable cause based on recognized patterns of criminal behavior.