UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Woodrow SPRINGFIELD, Sr., Defendant-Appellant, 699 F. App'x 661

MEMORANDUM Defendant William Springfield appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm. Even if Springfield has standing to challenge the search of the vehicle, the motion to suppress the evidence obtained through that search was properly denied. The district court found that the search of the car would have occurred anyway, even if Springfield had not been arrested and searched. That finding was not clearly erroneous. The officers testified that an inventory search of a stolen vehicle was standard procedure. See United States v. Mota, 982 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th Cir. 1993).

It is not disputed that the vehicle had been reported stolen. Because the methamphetamine “ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means,” the inevitable discovery doctrine applies. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.