United States v. Havins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 19, 2025
• Docket: 23-896
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 12 2025 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-896

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:21-cr-01515-H-1 v.

JOSHUA DAVID HAVINS, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 16, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE, IKUTA, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Joshua David Havins appeals the judgment imposed after a jury convicted

him of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court properly upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). We held in United States v. Duarte that “§ 922(g)(1)’s permanent and

categorical disarmament of felons [including non-violent felons] is consistent with

this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulations.” 137 F. 4th 743, 761 (9th

Cir. 2025) (en banc). Therefore, Havins’s § 922(g)(1) conviction is constitutional.

The search warrant for Havins’s property was properly issued. The officers’

observation of shell casings on Havins’s property did not need to be excised from

the affidavit supporting probable cause. The district court did not clearly err in

finding that the shell casings were observable from a public road near Havins’s

property. United States v. Glenn, 667 F.2d 1269, 1271 (9th Cir. 1982). Havins

therefore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the shell casings.

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213 (1986). The officers also did not trespass

onto Havins’s property to see the shell casings. Instead, the officers saw the shell

casings while conducting a knock and talk in a manner fully consistent with the

“habits of the country.” Fla. v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 8 (2013) (quoting McKee v.

Gratz, 260 U.S. 127, 136 (1922)). The officers therefore did not engage in an

unlawful search to view the shell casings prior to receiving the search warrant.

Havins’s motion to suppress was properly denied.

AFFIRMED.