United States v. Andres Lopez-Cruz
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18930
9th Cir.2013Background
- Lopez consented to a phone search; agent searched the phones off Lopez’s presence.
- One phone rang during the search; the agent answered, impersonating Lopez, to obtain information.
- The calls led to the arrest and evidence obtained for Lopez’s charges (conspiracy to transport illegal aliens).
- District court granted Lopez’s suppression motion, found standing, and held the consent did not include answering calls.
- Government sought reconsideration; district court declined; government argued exigent circumstances could justify the act.
- Court of Appeals affirms suppression order and denial of reconsideration, addressing standing, scope of consent, and exclusion of exigent-circumstances argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the search | Lopez had possession and privacy interest | Lopez lacked ownership/permission to use the phones | Lopez had standing to challenge the search |
| Scope of consent to search a phone | Consent to search did not include answering calls | Consent could extend to answering calls in some contexts | Consent to search did not include answering incoming calls |
| Whether answering calls falls within consent under exigent circumstances | Exigent circumstances justified the search | Exigent circumstances argument not considered; suppression affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. United States, 389 F.2d 347 (U.S. 1967) (establishes reasonable expectation of privacy framework)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991) (scope of consent to searches; objective standard)
- United States v. Padilla, 111 F.3d 685 (9th Cir. 1997) (standing and privacy interest framework in Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2007) (reasonable expectation of privacy factors)
- United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) (possession and privacy factors in standing analysis)
- United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466 (9th Cir. 1986) (abandonment analysis and intent)
- United States v. Decoud, 456 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006) (ownership disavowal and association with property)
- United States v. Ordonez, 737 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1984) (reference for warrant-related scope distinctions)
- United States v. Gallo, 659 F.2d 110 (9th Cir. 1981) (text on warrants vs. consent scope)
- United States v. Huffhines, 967 F.2d 314 (9th Cir. 1992) (scope of consent review standard)
- United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980) (district court discretion on suppression)
- Wong v. United States, 470 F.2d 129 (9th Cir. 1972) (law of the case and reconsideration context)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2006) (waived argument in reply brief)