4th Amendment

Sandoval’s expectation of privacy was also objectively reasonable. In LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1326 n. 11, 1332 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1985), we held that a person can have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent on private property. In Gooch, 6 F.3d at 677, we extended that holding to find a reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent on a public campground. Here, the tent was located on BLM land, not on a public campground, and it is unclear whether Sandoval had permission to be there. However, we do not believe the reasonableness of Sandoval’s expectation of privacy turns on whether he had permission to camp on public land. Such a distinction would mean that a camper who overstayed his permit in a public campground would lose his Fourth Amendment rights, while his neighbor, whose permit had not expired, would retain those rights.

Read the full case here: U.S. v. Sandoval, 200 F.3d 659, 660-61 (9th Cir. 2000), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-sandoval-73/

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

Gooch must have had both a subjective and an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the tent. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 516, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967).

SEARCH: We have already established that a person can have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in a tent on private property. LaDuke v. Nelson,762 F.2d 1318, 1326 n. 11, 1332 n. 19 (9th Cir. 1985). Accord LaDuke v. Castillo,455 F. Supp. 209 (E.D.Wash. 1978). This reasonable expectation is not destroyed when a person’s tent is pitched instead on a public campground where one is legally permitted to camp. The Fourth Amendment “protects people, not places.” Katz,389 U.S. at 351, 88 S.Ct. at 511; id. at 351-52, 88 S.Ct. at 511

ARREST: No warrant is required to arrest a suspected felon in a public place. United States v. Watson,423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976). Absent exigent circumstances, a warrantless arrest is unconstitutional in a “non-public” place, even when that place is not one’s residence. United States v. Alvarez,810 F.2d 879, 881 (9th Cir. 1987); Minnesota v. Olson,495 U.S. 91, 96 n. 5, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 1688 n. 5, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990). See United States v. Ruckman,806 F.2d 1471, 1475-76 (10th Cir. 1986) (McKay, J., dissenting) (suggesting that inhabitant of cave on public property has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy therein even if the cave is not considered a house).

Though Gooch’s tent was pitched on public property, we hold that the closed tent was a “non-public” place for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis. We have recognized that, despite the special status afforded a residence under the Fourth Amendment, “an individual’s privacy interests may be implicated in a variety of other settings.” United States v. Driver,776 F.2d 807, 809 (9th Cir. 1985). By establishing a campground, the state created a situation where campers were invited to come to set up a tent. The campers could reasonably assert a legitimate, though temporary, interest in their privacy even in this short-term “dwelling.”

We hold that Gooch’s warrantless arrest in his tent violated the proscription of the Fourth Amendment.

Full case here: U.S. v. Gooch, 6 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. 1993), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-gooch-7

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

Nowhere is the protective force of the Fourth Amendment more powerful than it is when the sanctity of the home is involved. The sanctity of a person’s home, perhaps our last real retreat in this technological age, lies at the very core of the rights which animate the amendment. Therefore, we have been adamant in our demand that absent exigent circumstances a warrant will be required before a person’s home is invaded by the authorities.

We can conceive of no reason to distinguish a garage, where people spend time, work, and store their possessions, from a den or a kitchen, where people spend time, work, and store their possessions. Simply put, a person’s garage is as much a part of his castle as the rest of his home.

Read full case here: U.S. v. Oaxaca, 233 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2000), https://casetext.com/case/usa-v-oaxaca

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

The United States appealed from orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Donald S. Voorhees, J., granting defendants’ suppression motions. The Court of Appeals, J. Blaine Anderson, Circuit Judge, held that action of airline employee in opening a “Speed Pak” was that of a government agent where only reason he opened case was his suspicion that it contained illegal drugs, employee, who at one time had been a listed informant, expected a probable reward from Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA agent testified that such expectation was reasonable and that although agency had no prior knowledge of the particular search and had not directed employee to perform it, it had encouraged him to engage in such types of search and employee had previously opened Speed Paks with no discouragement from the agency and had been rewarded for providing drug information in the past, although his informant’s file had previously been closed.

United States v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1981). Full case here: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-walther

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

Mr. Luis Alfonso Leon was stopped by law enforcement after he was observed illegally driving in a passing lane. During the traffic stop, the officer began to suspect Mr. Leon was trafficking drugs. A search of his vehicle uncovered seventy-six pounds of methamphetamine, and Mr. Leon was charged with one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Following a failed motion to suppress, he pled guilty and was sentenced to seventy months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Mr. Leon challenges the denial of his suppression motion, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and investigate the suspected drug trafficking. We agree and therefore reverse.

Takeaways:
1. the fact that the defendant was coming from Phoenix when he was stopped near Denver did not provide reasonable suspicion for prolonging the traffic stop;
2. The defendant‘s travel plans of driving from Denver to pick up religious books and perhaps stay for an event were not so implausible as to provide reasonable suspicion for prolonging traffic stop;
3. The condition of the vehicle’s interior did not provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity;
4. The defendant’s alleged nervousness during the traffic stop was not extreme and bore negligible weight in determining whether the trooper had reasonable suspicion for prolonging traffic stop; and
5. The trooper’s belief that the defendant was traveling in a third-party vehicle did not provide reasonable suspicion.

Full case here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110916595.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered following a traffic stop, and remanded for the district court to conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement of sentence, in a case in which Xzavione Taylor entered a conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The panel held that the officers did not unreasonably prolong the traffic stop. The panel wrote:
• An officer’s asking Taylor two questions about weapons early in the counter—once before the officer learned that Taylor was on federal supervision for being a felon in possession and once after—was a negligibly burdensome precaution that the officer could reasonably take in the name of safety.
• An officer did not unlawfully prolong the traffic stop when he asked Taylor to exit the vehicle.
• The officers’ subjective motivations are irrelevant because the Fourth Amendment’s concern with reasonableness allows certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subjective intent.
• A criminal history check and the officers’ other actions while Taylor was outside the car were within the lawful scope of the traffic stop.
• Even if, contrary to precedent, the frisk and criminal history check were beyond the original mission of the traffic stop, they were still permissible based on the officers’ reasonable suspicion of an independent offense: Taylor’s unlawful possession of a gun.

As to whether the officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched Taylor’s car, the panel held that the district court did not err in finding that Taylor unequivocally and specifically consented to a search of the car for firearms.

Taylor conceded that precedent forecloses his constitutional challenge to a risk-notification condition of supervised release. The panel remanded for the district court to conform the written judgment to its oral pronouncement of conditions concerning outpatient substance abuse treatment and vocational services programs.

Full case here: UNITED STATES V. TAYLOR, 60 F.4th 1233 (2023), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/01/21-10377.pdf

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

Most drivers do not know that they have a right to deny consent,and troopers are more than happy to exploit their lack of knowledge of their legal rights. Even though the law requires that consent be knowing, intelligent and voluntary, troopers don’t generally let such niceties stand in their way. For drivers who are not initially forthcoming with consent, troopers are trained to conclude the traffic stop, somehow signal that the driver is free to go, then immediately re-engage the driver in friendly, casual conversation to keep the driver at the scene and enable the trooper to develop reasonable suspicion or take another stab at getting consent . . .

The Court found that the Kansas Highway Patrol “is engaged in a pattern or practice of prolonging traffic stops by using the Kansas Two-Step to coerce drivers into answering questions when the troopers do not have reasonable suspicion and the drivers do not feel free to leave. This practice violates the Fourth Amendment by extending traffic stops without reasonable suspicion and without the knowing, intelligent and voluntary consent of the drivers.”

Full case here: BLAINE FRANKLIN SHAW et al., v. HERMAN JONES, in his official capacity as the ) Superintendent of the Kansas Highway Patrol, ) et al.,

https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2020cv1067-86

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a T-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Do you want to mail me something (usually mustache-related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on October 14, 2020, officers from the New York City Police Department (NYPD) encountered Defendant Michael Hagood near a housing complex managed by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) in the Bronx. Mr. Hagood was notably wearing a fanny pack slung across his chest while standing beside a double-parked vehicle. The officers observed that Mr. Hagood appeared visibly anxious upon spotting them, with one officer noticing an unusual protrusion in his fanny pack that resembled the shape of a handgun.

Prompted by these observations, the officers decided to stop and frisk Mr. Hagood, leading to the discovery of a loaded semi-automatic pistol in the fanny pack. Consequently, Mr. Hagood faced charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) for possessing a firearm subsequent to a felony conviction. He subsequently sought to suppress the firearm as evidence, contending that the initial stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights due to the officers lacking reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

However, the circumstances surrounding this case, which encompasses the officer’s expertise in retrieving firearms from fanny packs, Mr. Hagood’s unconventional method of wearing the fanny pack, his nervous demeanor upon encountering the officers, and the late hour within a high-crime neighborhood, collectively established reasonable suspicion.

Dissent:
The ordinary, reasonable person looking at this case would describe it as follows: Officer Migliaccio drove by Michael Hagood late one night from thirty feet away and had a two- or three-second window during which to observe Hagood. Migliaccio saw Hagood standing outside, calmly talking to two friends and wearing a fanny pack over his shoulder and across his chest. For whatever reason, Migliaccio had a hunch that Hagood was up to no good. Migliaccio acted on his hunch and decided to find a way to search Hagood. His hunch turned out to be right. Hagood was, indeed, a past felon improperly in possession of a gun. […D]espite the majority’s Herculean efforts, the record, at best, merely supports that Migliaccio had a hunch that turned out right.

Read the full case here: United States v. Hagood, No. 22-588 (2d Cir. 2023), https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-588/22-588-2023-08-30.html

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

In Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981), the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of valid consent or exigent circumstances, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable and violate the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 211, 101 S.Ct. 1642. Here, the only warrant the police possessed at the time they entered Cruz’s home was an old warrant for Medina’s arrest for driving a car with a suspended license. In Steagald, the Supreme Court stated that an arrest warrant for a non-resident was insufficient to authorize a search of a third party’s home.Id. at 216, 101 S.Ct. 1642. Operating under the premise that the police did not have valid consent or exigent circumstances to search Cruz’s home, Medina contends that the search by the HPD violated the principle stated in Steagald.

What about girlfriend’s consent in this case?

Consent is not voluntary if it is merely the acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority. Bumper, 391 U.S. at 548-49. Moreover, “[w]here there is coercion, there cannot be consent.”Id. at 550. Consent must be voluntary and courts look to several factors in order to determine whether consent was given voluntarily or through coercion. United States v. Barnett, 989 F.2d 546, 554-55 (1st Cir. 1993). Those factors include age, education, experience, intelligence, knowledge of the right to withhold consent and evidence of coercive means or inherently coercive circumstances. United States v. Corain, 198 F.3d 306, 309 (1st Cir. 1999). No one factor is determinative because the Court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the purported consent. Barnett, 989 F.2d at 554-55.

Read full case here: U.S. v. Medina, 451 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D. Mass. 2006), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-medina-10

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!

“[W]hen an officer has probable cause to believe evidence of a crime will be found specifically in the passenger compartment of a vehicle, and no other subsequent discovery or information provides further probable cause to believe the evidence will be found in the trunk, an officer’s search of the trunk exceeds the permissible scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception.”

The Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is fundamental to our sense of liberty and justice. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) The general rule is that warrantless searches are unreasonable.(Katz v. United States (1967) 389U.S.347, 357.)Certain circumstances, however, create exceptions to the general ban on warrantless searches. (Ibid.) One such exception—the automobile exception—is the focus of this appeal.

“The automobile exception provides ‘police who have probable cause to believe a lawfully stopped vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity or contraband may conduct a warrantless search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.’” (People v. McGee(2020) 53Cal.App.5th 796, 801, quoting People v. Evans(2011) 200Cal.App.4th 735, 753.) The scope of a warrantless search is “defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.” (United States v. Ross(1982) 456U.S.798, 824 (Ross).)In deciding whether a warrantless search was justified under the automobile exception, the facts are determinative. That is because probable cause exists “where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” (Ornelas v. United States(1996) 517U.S.690, 696.)

Here, the searching police officer received information via a radio broadcast from another officer that a juvenile on probation with a firearm restriction likely placed a firearm under the front passenger seat in defendant Hilario Leal, Jr.’s car before the defendant got into his car and drove away. Defendant’s car was under constant surveillance from the timeof the alleged firearm placement until the searching officer conducted the search. When search the passenger compartment of defendant’s car yielded no firearm, the searching officer decided to search the trunk, where he discovered a firearm. Defendant was charged withseveraloffenses and filed a motion to suppress the firearm; the trial court denied the motion. Defendant ultimately pled no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The question presented is whether the search of the defendant’s trunk was justified under the automobile exception. We conclude it was not.

Read full case here: California v. Leal, https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/c096463.html

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!