United States v. Hendricks

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 16, 2024
• Docket: 23-2240
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-2240 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00175-TOR-1 v. MEMORANDUM*

MATTHEW DYLAN HENDRICKS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2024** Seattle, Washington

Before: CHRISTEN and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District Judge.***

Matthew Dylan Hendricks appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to

* 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 Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. suppress evidence.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, and we review for clear

error its factual findings. United States v. Ramirez, 976 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir.

2020). We affirm.

The district court correctly determined that the government’s warrantless

search of Hendricks’ clutch was a valid search incident to arrest.2 “[A] search

incident to a lawful arrest is a traditional exception to the warrant requirement of

the Fourth Amendment.” United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 224 (1973).

Under this exception, when conducting a lawful arrest, officers may search the

arrestee’s person, including personal property that could be characterized as “an

element of [arrestee’s] clothing[.]” United States v. Passaro, 624 F.2d 938, 944

(9th Cir. 1980) (“[T]he wallet found in the pocket of [arrestee] was an element of

his clothing, his person, which is, for a reasonable time following a legal arrest,

taken out of the realm of protection from police interest.”).

Because Hendricks’ clutch was attached to his clothing with a carabiner and

was concealed underneath his zipped jacket, it was associated with his person. See

id. Further, because Hendricks’ clutch was attached to and concealed under his

1 Hendricks’ plea agreement preserves his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion. See, e.g., United States v. Estrella, 69 F.4th 958, 964 (9th Cir. 2023). 2 Hendricks does not dispute the lawfulness of his arrest.

2 clothing, it was on his person, not merely within his immediate control. See United

States v. Monclavo-Cruz, 662 F.2d 1285, 1290 (9th Cir. 1981) (discussing

distinction between wallet in arrestee’s pocket and purse held in arrestee’s hand or

on their lap).3 Finally, because the officer detached the clutch from Hendricks’

clothing and searched it only a few seconds later, while another officer continued

patting Hendricks down, no intervening circumstances removed the clutch from the

scope of the lawful search incident to arrest. See Robinson, 414 U.S. at 223

(upholding search of cigarette pack where officer “reached into [arrestee’s] pocket

and pulled out the object,” “opened the cigarette pack,” and “continued his search

of [arrestee] to completion”).

Hendricks also argues that the search was unlawful because his clutch was

zipped shut. We disagree. During a search incident to arrest, officers may open

containers found on the arrestee’s person because arrestees have reduced privacy

interests in such items. Id. at 236 (“Having in the course of a lawful search come

upon the crumpled package of cigarettes, [the officer] was entitled to inspect it.”).

Hendricks does not identify any authority establishing that police cannot open a

3 Hendricks relies primarily on United States v. Knapp, 917 F.3d 1161, 1168 (10th Cir. 2019). Knapp is an out-of-circuit case that is not binding precedent. Moreover, Knapp distinguished between searches of “the arrestee’s immediate person, worn clothing, or containers concealed under or within [his] clothing,” which are included in searches of the person, from “visible containers in an arrestee’s hand[.]” 917 F.3d at 1167 (emphasis added). Here, it is undisputed that Hendricks’ clutch was concealed underneath his jacket.

3 zipped container under such circumstances.

AFFIRMED.