Page 1
Three Disparate Views Expressed by Members of a Ninth Circuit Panel in Search Case
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Three judges of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday expressed varying views in a case in which San Bernardino sheriffs’ deputies signaled a man to stop his truck, he pulled into the driveway of a private residence, it was determined that he had a criminal history and lacked a current driver’s license, and the vehicle was searched, revealing the presence of a handgun.
The man, Jonathan Anderson, conditionally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion by District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California.
Judges Sandra S. Ikuta, Kenneth K. Lee, and Danielle J. Forrest were in agreement that Klausner “did not err in concluding that the government established that a valid community caretaking purpose existed for impounding and inventorying Anderson’s truck before the search was conducted.”
However, the three judges had a divergence of views as to other matters.
Per Curiam Opinion
A per curiam opinion notes that Anderson contends that the evidence shows that the deputies would have had only two minutes and 10 seconds within which to have ascertained from the homeowner that he didn’t want Anderson’s truck parked in his driveway, conducted the search, and called dispatch. That was impossible, he asserts, because the homeowner testified that it took him a minute or two to wake and come to the door and that he spoke with a deputy for “several minutes.”
The opinion says:
“Although the district court could have provided more reasoning, it is evident from its findings that it credited the testimony of the deputies over the homeowner’s testimony based on “judging the credibility” of the witnesses. We must give special deference to the district court’s credibility determinations, and we cannot conclude that it was illogical or implausible for the district court to reject the homeowner’s time estimates and give more credit to the deputies’ accounts.”
On that point, Lee disagreed, saying in his partial dissent:
“The district court held that the “only evidence before the Court at this time, other than speculation, from the testimony of the witnesses, is that they did talk to the homeowner before they searched the car.” But in reality, the record appears much murkier and quite contradictory. I dissent in part because I would have remanded this issue to the district court to resolve the potentially inconsistent evidence and to provide a more detailed explanation.”
The per curiam opinion counters that because Klausner’s finding that the homeowner was consulted before the search occurred, and “[b]ecause this finding is entitled to deference, no remand is required.”
Forrest’s Partial Dissent
Forrest said in her partial dissent:
“I agree with the court that a valid community-caretaking purpose existed to impound Anderson’s truck and conduct an inventory search. I disagree, however, that the deputies conducted a valid inventory search. As a result, I would reverse the district court’s denial of Anderson’s motion to suppress and vacate his conviction.”
She explained that Deputy Kyle Schuler violated the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department inventory-search policy by failing to list all property contained in the vehicle.
The per curiam opinion responds:
“Judge Forrest errs in focusing on ‘how much deviation from a department’s inventory-search policy’ the Fourth Amendment allows…, because an administrative policy does not define Anderson’s constitutional rights. Contrary to Judge Forrest’s dissent, the ‘rule of law’ applicable to an inventory search is not an administrative policy or a procedural manual, but rather the Fourth Amendment itself, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Anderson was sentenced to roughly six-and-a-half months in prison (77 months) and placed on supervised release for three years after that. The case was remanded for clarification of a term of the probation.
The case is United States v. Anderson, 20-50345.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company