United States v. Ricky Runner

Citation: Not availableDocket: 21-4085

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; August 8, 2022; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Ricky D. Runner, the appellant, pleaded guilty to being a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(a)(2), while preserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless search of his vehicle. Runner contends that the presence of a glass stem pipe observed by officers in plain view did not meet the criteria for the plain view exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.

The events leading to the appeal began on October 11, 2018, when Officer Zachary Mucheck responded to an anonymous tip regarding a woman allegedly using drugs in a blue Volkswagen parked in a Wal-Mart lot in Moundsville, West Virginia. Upon arrival, Officer Mucheck encountered Stacy Garloch, who denied using drugs and showed no signs of impairment. Officer Robert Shilling, a drug recognition expert, did not find evidence of recent drug use during his examination of Garloch.

Garloch permitted a search of her purse, which yielded no contraband. An initial visual inspection of the vehicle revealed no illegal activity, prompting Mucheck to request permission to search the vehicle. Garloch declined, stating she did not have the authority to consent as the car was not hers. The appeal was argued on May 5, 2022, and decided on August 8, 2022, with the court affirming the district court's decision, finding no clear factual or legal error in its reasoning.

Mucheck suggested to fellow officers that they wait for Runner to exit Wal-Mart to seek his consent for a vehicle search. Before Runner emerged, Officer Shilling visually inspected the vehicle and noted a glass stem pipe in the center console, which he believed indicated prior use, though he could not confirm its usage or the substance involved. After identifying Runner inside the store, Mucheck disabled his body camera for battery conservation. Upon locating Runner, Mucheck prevented him from leaving, acknowledging that Runner's Fourth Amendment rights were engaged. More officers arrived, and when Shilling asked for permission to search the vehicle, Runner declined. The officers then asserted they had probable cause due to the pipe's presence, leading Runner to unlock the vehicle. The search, initiated at 2:14 a.m., uncovered marijuana, suspected crystal methamphetamine, and Xanax pills in Garloch's makeup bag. Both Runner and Garloch lacked valid driver’s licenses. During a pat-down, Runner mentioned the potential presence of firearms in the vehicle, stemming from his cousin, the owner. The search of the trunk revealed ammunition, a firearm, additional crystal methamphetamine, and a needle. Subsequently, Runner was arrested and indicted on June 4, 2019, for unlawful possession of a firearm as a felon. On August 20, 2020, he moved to suppress the evidence from the search, arguing that the incriminating nature of the pipe was not immediately evident. A hearing on September 11, 2020, featured testimonies from Mucheck and Shilling, who characterized the pipe as drug paraphernalia used for illegal substances. They acknowledged the existence of legal hemp and CBD products but suggested that stem pipes are primarily associated with illegal drugs. William Schmitt, a CBD shop owner and witness for Runner, testified about the rising popularity of CBD products and acknowledged that while traditional ingestion methods are oral, stem pipes are sometimes used for smoking hemp and CBD oils.

On September 17, 2020, the government submitted supplemental briefing regarding the sufficiency of drug paraphernalia for establishing probable cause. The following day, Runner contended that glass pipes should not be considered unlawful contraband due to their legitimate use for hemp or CBD oil. On September 28, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending the denial of Runner's motion to suppress evidence, concluding that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe the pipe found in Runner's vehicle was used for illegal substances, supported by Shilling’s specialized drug detection training. The magistrate ruled that the legality of the pipes' use did not negate the officers’ conclusions. Runner objected to this recommendation on October 13, 2020. However, on October 27, 2020, the district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation, overruling Runner's objections and denying the motion to suppress, affirming that the officers had a lawful right to view the pipe and probable cause to believe it represented evidence of a crime.

Subsequently, Runner entered a plea agreement on November 2, 2020, while preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. He was sentenced on February 24, 2021, to 51 months of incarceration and 3 years of supervised release. In the appeal process, the reviewing court applies a de novo standard for legal determinations and checks for clear error in factual conclusions, considering evidence in favor of the government. The Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches do not apply when the plain view doctrine is in effect, which allows seizure of items that are plainly viewed as contraband, provided the officers meet specific criteria. The case centers on whether the incriminating nature of the glass stem pipe was immediately apparent to the officers, a standard that does not require an excessively high degree of certainty for application of the plain view doctrine as noted by the Supreme Court.

A search conducted under the plain view doctrine is generally considered reasonable if there is probable cause linking the property to criminal activity. Probable cause is defined as a flexible standard that allows an officer to believe, based on available facts, that items may be contraband or useful as evidence, without requiring that the belief be correct. In this case, Runner contends that the mere presence of a glass pipe, potentially used for legal substances, does not establish probable cause. However, an officer, informed by an anonymous tip about drug use, identified the glass pipe as contraband based on his expertise, which meets the low threshold for probable cause.

Runner cites two Sixth Circuit cases—United States v. Beal and United States v. McLevain—to argue that the pipe’s nature does not provide probable cause. In Beal, the court found that items resembling fountain pens were "intrinsically innocent" and not immediately perceived as incriminating. Similarly, in McLevain, everyday objects were deemed not intrinsically incriminating, despite officers’ experiences suggesting otherwise. In contrast, a glass pipe, as affirmed by the officer's expertise, is predominantly associated with illegal drug use, supporting a reasonable belief that it is evidence of a crime. Thus, while some items may be innocuous, the glass pipe does not fall into that category, justifying the officer's conclusion of probable cause.

Cases in this Circuit validating plain view searches involving drug paraphernalia have consistently included additional evidence supporting probable cause. Relevant cases demonstrate that mere observation of pipes is insufficient; additional indicators, such as the presence of drugs or strong odors, are necessary. In the current case, while a glass pipe was observed, it was not the sole factor. The officers acted on an anonymous tip, which described a method of drug ingestion different from a pipe, and while the individuals involved did not show clear signs of drug use, corroboration of the tip was present as they located a woman in a specific vehicle in a sparsely populated area. The totality of the circumstances, including the officer's expertise in drug recognition, established a probability of criminal activity, aligning with the legal standard that does not necessitate definitive proof. The potential for innocent uses of the glass pipe was acknowledged, but considering all evidence in favor of the government, the plain view exception was deemed applicable, affirming the lawfulness of the vehicle search. The district court's judgment is thus upheld.