United States v. Jorge Rios-Lopez

545 F. App'x 644

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 19, 2013
• Docket: 20-15399
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Jorge Armando Rios-Lopez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a residence and from the GPS-traeking of his cellular telephone. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The magistrate judge’s probable cause determination that it was reasonable to seek evidence and contraband in the residence was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc); United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir.2004). Several indicia of reliability supported the informant’s hearsay testimony cited in Detective Stohel’s affidavit. See United States v. Rowland, 464 F.3d 899, 907-08 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1397 (9th Cir.1986). The affidavit also tied Defendant to the residence and to narcotics sales there. See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1254 (9th Cir.2004). Because the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, the district court properly denied Defendant’s suppression motion. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).

2. Even assuming, without deciding, that the officers’ GPS-traeking of Defendant’s cellular telephone constituted a search, and that the warrant authorizing this search issued without probable cause, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule still applies. Agent Stanley’s affidavit established a “colorable argument” for probable cause, and the officers’ reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable. United States v. Crews, 502 F.3d 1130, 1136 (9th Cir.2007). Suppression is therefore inappropriate. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.