Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence gained through a frisk after a vehicle stop. The court concluded that the police officers had no particularized suspicions directed at the unthreatening defendant to justify the Terry frisk at its inception; the searching officer exceeded the lawful scope of the frisk by lifting defendant's shirt to retrieve an object; and therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. I.E.V., Juvenile Male" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to possess and of possessing pseudoephedrine, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred as a matter of law in refusing a requested jury instruction specifying that "reasonable cause to believe" must be evaluated from her perspective, based on her knowledge and sophistication. The court held that the district court erred in refusing defendant's requested instruction and that the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Munguia" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his jury conviction for offenses relating to the sale of eagle parts. He contended that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when an undercover agent used a concealed audio-video device to record an illegal transaction defendant conducted in his home. The court rejected this argument because the Fourth Amendment's protection did not extend to information that a person voluntarily exposed to a government agent, including an undercover agent. The court also rejected defendant's Confrontation Clause challenge, and his objection to the admission of certain photographs of eagles and other bird parts at his trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The court reversed, however, defendant's conviction on Counts 2 or 3 and Counts 4 or 5 because those were multiplicitous. View "United States v. Wahchumwah" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance and a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of these crimes that was discovered in the subsequent warrantless search of his car. The government presented its substantive arguments orally at the suppression hearing and in its written response to the magistrate judge's Report, and therefore the court held that those arguments were preserved for appeal. Moreover, because the police had probable cause to suspect that evidence of a crime would be found in defendant's car, which had the potential for mobility and was being used as a licensed motor vehicle, the court held that the government's warrantless search of defendant's car was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Therefore, defendant's motion to suppress should not have been granted and the court reversed the judgment. View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Church appealed a sanction order granting attorneys' fees and costs to appellees. The court held that appellant did not take reasonable steps to avoid imposing an undue burden on appellees, who were non-parties to the underlying case. In reversing the sanctions order, the court held that Rule 45(c)(1) could not properly support a sanction where the cost of complying with the subpoena was minimal and there was no showing that the subpoena was facially defective or issued in bad faith. View "Mount Hope Church, et al v. Bash Back!" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession and transportation of child pornography. The court affirmed the district court's imposition of a sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice in a case in which defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court wrote that defendant's conduct was obstructive with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of his felon-in-possession conviction; and it was immaterial that he intended to obstruct only the prior child pornography case in which he was on pretrial release. View "United States v. Manning" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of the Board's denial of an application for benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), 45 U.S.C. 231 et seq. The court held that short periods of temporary employment, inadequately performed, did not constitute substantial gainful employment that would disqualify a claimant for benefits. The court further held that when considering the RRA's requirement of continuous disability, the court must look to the history of the claimant's disability and the claimant's success or lack thereof in sustaining meaningful employment. Accordingly, the court concluded that petitioner was entitled to benefits. View "Stephens, Jr. v. U.S Railroad Retirement Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, asserted that denials by prison officials of his request for a conjugal visit with his wife violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq., and the First Amendment, by interfering with his practice of a tenet of his Islamic faith requiring him to marry, consummate his marriage, and father children. The court held that because plaintiff's claim was based on an independently wrongful, discrete act in 2008, which was the denial of his request for conjugal visits with his second wife, his claims were not time-barred, notwithstanding the denial, pursuant to the same regulation, of his prior requests for conjugal visits with his first wife in 2002. View "Pouncil v. Tilton, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction and sentence for perjury and for making a false statement. Principally she challenged the district court's admission of testimony from a grand juror. She also challenged the district court's rejection of her claim of recantation, the sufficiency of the evidence, and her sentence. Because the court held that the admission of the grand juror's testimony was unduly prejudicial, the court reversed. View "United States v. Wiggan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegal reentry. The court held that a November 1, 2012 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines clarified, rather than altered, existing law in providing that a probation revocation sentence served after deportation should not be used to calculate the "sentence imposed" under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1). Therefore, the court applied the amendment retroactively and concluded that the district court erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) rather than a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(B). View "United States v. Catalan" on Justia Law