United States v. Vincent Jones

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Vincent Jones

473 F. App'x 761

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 1, 2012·No. 11-50100·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Vincent Anthony Jones (Jones) appeals the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence found in his car after he was arrested for bank robbery. Jones also appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a Franks 1 hearing.

1. The district court did not err when it denied Jones’s motions to suppress evidence seized from the first search of his car based on the determination that the search was justified by probable cause. See United States v. Rodgers, 656 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir.2011) (“Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2. Likewise, the district court did not err in concluding that the second search was justified for the same reason. See United States v. Noster, 590 F.3d 624, 634 (9th Cir.2009), as amended (“[T]he justification to conduct a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized, and there is no requirement that the warrantless search of a vehicle occur contemporaneously with its lawful seizure ....”) (citations, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). In any event, the second search was executed pursuant to a search warrant supported by an adequate and not misleading affidavit.

3. The district court also did not err in denying Jones’s request for a Franks hearing based on its conclusion that no information was deliberately or recklessly *762 omitted from the affidavit. See United States v. Flyer, 683 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.2011); see also Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1226 (9th Cir.2009). Because probable cause would still exist had the omitted information been included, “no constitutional error has occurred.” Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1084 (9th Cir.2011) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

*

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

1

. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978).

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

MEMORANDUM *

Vincent Anthony Jones (Jones) appeals the district court’s denial of his motions to suppress evidence found in his car after he was arrested for bank robbery. Jones also appeals the district court’s denial of his request for a Franks 1 hearing.

1. The district court did not err when it denied Jones’s motions to suppress evidence seized from the first search of his car based on the determination that the search was justified by probable cause. See United States v. Rodgers, 656 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir.2011) (“Probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2. Likewise, the district court did not err in concluding that the second search was justified for the same reason. See United States v. Noster, 590 F.3d 624, 634 (9th Cir.2009), as amended (“[T]he justification to conduct a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized, and there is no requirement that the warrantless search of a vehicle occur contemporaneously with its lawful seizure ....”) (citations, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted). In any event, the second search was executed pursuant to a search warrant supported by an adequate and not misleading affidavit.

3. The district court also did not err in denying Jones’s request for a Franks hearing based on its conclusion that no information was deliberately or recklessly *762 omitted from the affidavit. See United States v. Flyer, 683 F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir.2011); see also Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1226 (9th Cir.2009). Because probable cause would still exist had the omitted information been included, “no constitutional error has occurred.” Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1084 (9th Cir.2011) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

*

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

1

. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978).

United States v. Vincent Jones, 473 F. App'x 761 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

473 F. App'x 761 (United States v. Vincent Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related