United States v. Jose Rodriguez

695 F. App'x 339
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 16, 2017·No. 15-50328·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the driver of the car in which Rodriguez was riding of breaking the law, and they therefore had a “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to lawfully stop the vehicle. See Cal. Vehicle Code §§ 5200, 4456(c), 11715; see also Helen v. N. Carolina, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 530, 536, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014). The officers lawfully asked Rodriguez to step out of the car for the duration of the stop. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110-111 & n.6, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). Rodriguez dropped drugs as he exited. When the officers found the drugs, they had probable cause to arrest him, and the subsequent search of the car in which he had been a passenger was lawful. See United States v. Pinela-Hernandez, 262 F.3d 974, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court properly denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the car and the statements he made after his arrest. See id.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Jose Rodriguez, 695 F. App'x 339 (9th Cir. 2017).

695 F. App'x 339 (United States v. Jose Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pennsylvania v. Mimms
434 U.S. 106 (Supreme Court, 1977)
United States v. Alberto Pinela-Hernandez
262 F.3d 974 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)
Heien v. North Carolina
135 S. Ct. 530 (Supreme Court, 2014)