United States v. Michael Clarkson

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Michael Clarkson

585 F. App'x 536

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 21, 2014

Docket12-50602

StatusUnpublished

This text of 585 F. App'x 536 (United States v. Michael Clarkson) 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. Michael Clarkson, 585 F. App'x 536 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Clarkson appeals the district court’s decision denying his motion to suppress evidence that officers found while conducting a probation search of Clark-son’s home. Clarkson argues that the officers needed reasonable suspicion to search his home, and that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion before entering his home. We need not decide what level of suspicion was required, or whether the officers had the requisite level of suspicion. At the time of the search, our precedent authorized suspicionless searches of probationer’s homes. See Sanchez v. Canales, 574 F.3d 1169, 1174 & n. 3 (9th Cir.2009), overruled by United States v. King, 687 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). The discovered evidence is therefore not subject to the exclusionary rule even if the search was unlawful. See Davis v. United States, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2423-24, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (“[S]earches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.”).

Clarkson also argues that the officers did not have probable cause that the searched residence was Clarkson’s home and that officers obtained incriminating statements from Clarkson in violation of his Miranda rights. Clarkson waived these arguments because he neither raised them below nor preserved the right to make them on appeal in his plea agreement. See United States v. Hawkins, 249 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir.2001) (“The failure to raise a particular ground in support of a motion to suppress constitutes a waiver of that challenge.”); United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 583 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that when a defendant reserves the right to appeal only the order on a motion to suppress, he “waive[s] his right to appeal all grounds not addressed in that order”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Clarkson appeals the district court’s decision denying his motion to suppress evidence that officers found while conducting a probation search of Clark-son’s home. Clarkson argues that the officers needed reasonable suspicion to search his home, and that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion before entering his home. We need not decide what level of suspicion was required, or whether the officers had the requisite level of suspicion. At the time of the search, our precedent authorized suspicionless searches of probationer’s homes. See Sanchez v. Canales, 574 F.3d 1169, 1174 & n. 3 (9th Cir.2009), overruled by United States v. King, 687 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). The discovered evidence is therefore not subject to the exclusionary rule even if the search was unlawful. See Davis v. United States, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2423-24, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (“[S]earches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.”).

Clarkson also argues that the officers did not have probable cause that the searched residence was Clarkson’s home and that officers obtained incriminating statements from Clarkson in violation of his Miranda rights. Clarkson waived these arguments because he neither raised them below nor preserved the right to make them on appeal in his plea agreement. See United States v. Hawkins, 249 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir.2001) (“The failure to raise a particular ground in support of a motion to suppress constitutes a waiver of that challenge.”); United States v. Bynum, 362 F.3d 574, 583 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that when a defendant reserves the right to appeal only the order on a motion to suppress, he “waive[s] his right to appeal all grounds not addressed in that order”).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 F. App'x 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michael-clarkson-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack