United States v. Donald E. Faulkner

450 F.3d 466 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald E. FAULKNER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 05-10405. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 16, 2006. Filed June 13, 2006. Mark A. Lizarraga, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Fresno, CA, for the defendant-appellant. Stanley A. Boone, Assistant United States Attorney, Fresno, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Robert E. Coyle, Senior Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-04-05077-REC. Before STEPHEN REINHARDT, RICHARD A. PAEZ, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. TALLMAN, Circuit Judge. 1 Donald E. Faulkner ("Faulkner") appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Faulkner was cited for driving while his license was suspended and for driving in possession of an open container of alcohol. During a stop at an information station operated by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") located on federal land in California, Chief Ranger Ed Ruth ("Ruth") observed a one quart, open container of beer in Faulkner's car. During the stop, Ruth learned that Faulkner's driver's license was…

Donald E. Faulkner (“Faulkner”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Faulkner was cited for driving while his license was suspended and for driving in possession of an open' container of alcohol. During a stop at an information station operated by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) located on federal land in California, Chief Ranger Ed Ruth (“Ruth”) observed a one quart, open container of beer in Faulkner’s car. During the stop, Ruth learned that Faulkner’s driver’s license was suspended. We must decide in this case whether the *468 brief stop of Faulkner at the checkpoint 1 was a valid seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We conclude that it was and affirm.

I

The following facts are drawn from the evidence presented at the suppression hearing before the district court and on the court’s factual findings in support of its ruling.

In the summer of 2001, Ruth established an information station on federal land approximately 165 feet after entering the BLM’s 2 Paradise Recreation Area (“Paradise”) in Three Rivers, California. Ruth, the Chief Ranger for the BLM in Bakersfield responsible for managing the BLM’s law enforcement program, personally…

concurring:

Although I agree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the stop at the information station was constitutional, I do so not because I believe that it was a reasonable seizure, 1 but because I believe it was not a seizure at all.

Chief Ranger Ruth stopped all cars entering Paradise Recreation Area to inform them of park regulations and to provide them with a litter bag. There was ample space on the road leading into the park for potential visitors to turn around, should they not wish to proceed to the information station. Although Ruth would occasionally ask visitors if they possessed alcohol, the majority acknowledges that an affirmative answer would not ordinarily be of any material consequence, as the possession of alcohol is not per se illegal. 2 At no point during their brief exchanges with Ruth would the freedom of potential visitors be terminated or restricted. See Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, *475 597 , 109 S.Ct. 1378 , 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989) (holding that a Fourth Amendment seizure occurs “when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied” (emphasis omitted)); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1,…