United States v. Luis Proano

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 15, 2018
Docket16-50320
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Luis Proano (United States v. Luis Proano) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Luis Proano, (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 15 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50320

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00199-PSG-1 v.

LUIS HUMBERTO PROANO, aka Racer, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 5, 2018 Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN,** District Judge.

Officers arrested and interrogated Defendant Luis Humberto Proano after he

attempted to cash a check using someone else’s personal information. In the

district court, Defendant moved to suppress, among other things, several

incriminating statements that he made during the interrogation. The district court

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. denied the motion with respect to those statements. We reverse and remand with

instructions.

Defendant unambiguously and unequivocally invoked his right to remain

silent when he told the interrogating officers "I have nothing to say." See Arnold

v. Runnels, 421 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that "neither the

Supreme Court nor this court has required that a suspect seeking to invoke his right

to silence provide any statement more explicit or more technically-worded than ‘I

have nothing to say’"). Accordingly, the officers should have ceased questioning

immediately. Anderson v. Terhune, 516 F.3d 781, 788 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

We thus instruct the district court to suppress all of Defendant’s post-invocation

statements.

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

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

Related

Grady Arnold v. D.L. Runnels
421 F.3d 859 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Anderson v. Terhune
516 F.3d 781 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Luis Proano, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-luis-proano-ca9-2018.