United States v. Harson Chong
15-50101
9th Cir.Dec 13, 2017Background
- Police observed activity through an open garage at Chong’s residence and saw Tran toss a bag later identified as methamphetamine; officers entered the garage, secured the scene, and conducted a protective sweep.
- Officers discovered cash during the sweep and later obtained a warrant to search the house, finding additional evidence and weapons; both Chong and Tran were charged with drug and firearms offenses; Tran also charged as a felon in possession and received a career-offender enhancement.
- Chong and Tran moved to suppress evidence and raised several pretrial and trial objections (Miranda, severance, counsel presence); the district court denied suppression and other relief; both were convicted by a jury.
- On appeal, they challenged (inter alia) the warrantless entry/search, standing to contest curtilage, failure to receive Miranda warnings (Chong), joint trial, counsel presence at a status conference, sufficiency of firearm evidence, and the career-offender enhancement for Tran.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it upheld the entry/search and suppression rulings as reasonable or harmless, rejected severance and presence-of-counsel claims, found sufficient evidence for firearms convictions, and sustained the career-offender enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Chong's Argument | Tran's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of officers’ entry into garage/observations from outside | Entry and sweep were unlawful; suppress evidence | Same — sought suppression | Entry and sweep lawful: open garage view made activity observable; officers could enter to secure scene and prevent evidence destruction (Maisano, Alaimalo) |
| Standing/curtilage to challenge search | (Chong) raised curtilage? (not preserved) | Tran argued curtilage entry unlawful | Tran waived curtilage argument below and lacked standing to challenge search of house used as stash; Chong waived curtilage on appeal |
| Evidentiary hearing on suppression motions | Sought hearing to examine deputy | Sought hearing to contest parole-justification | District court did not abuse discretion; cross-examination occurred and court upheld search on probable cause grounds |
| Miranda warnings for statements in squad car | Chong: statements obtained without Miranda should be suppressed | Government: statements admissible or harmless | Court: Miranda warnings were required and statements should be suppressed, but error was harmless because evidence was independently discovered |
| Severance of trials | Joint trial prejudiced Chong/Tran | Joint trial proper; no showing of prejudice | Claim not preserved; alternatively no legally cognizable prejudice (Zafiro) |
| Right to counsel/presence at pretrial status conference | Chong: counsel absent, rights violated | Government: no critical-stage decision affecting Chong | No Sixth Amendment violation; no critical adverse ruling occurred and Chong did not seek continuance (Cronic, Rushen) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for firearms convictions | (Chong) challenged possession links | Tran argued he lacked possession/knowledge | Evidence sufficient for Tran — jury could infer Tran used Chong’s home to store firearms |
| Career-offender enhancement (residual clause vagueness) | Tran: enhancement improper/void for vagueness | Government: prior robbery convictions qualify; Beckles controls | Enhancement proper: California robbery counts qualify as crimes of violence; residual clause not void under Beckles and McDougherty |
Key Cases Cited
- Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1991) (observations into open garage permissible)
- United States v. Alaimalo, 313 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2002) (officers may enter to secure scene and prevent destruction of evidence)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998) (Fourth Amendment protection limited for visitors using a residence for drug activity)
- United States v. Zermeno, 66 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 1995) (using another’s house as a stash house does not create legitimate expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Higuchi, 437 F.2d 835 (9th Cir. 1971) (harmless-error analysis for improperly admitted statements)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (standards for severance and joint trials)
- United States v. McDougherty, 920 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1990) (California robbery qualifies as a crime of violence for sentencing)
- Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (holding that the Sentencing Guidelines’ residual clause is not void for vagueness)
- United States v. Daychild, 357 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard for addressing ineffective assistance on direct appeal)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (counsel absence at critical stages can require reversal)
- Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114 (1983) (defendant’s personal presence at critical stages)