United States v. Job
871 F.3d 852
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police encountered Travis Job at 2504 Snowdrop St. on Oct. 3, 2012; officers patted him down, found a glass pipe, $1,450, and car keys; a subsequent warrantless search of his car produced 3.9g methamphetamine and other items.
- A records check indicated Job was on probation with a Fourth Amendment search-waiver condition for a California meth possession offense.
- On Dec. 5, 2012, officers executed a warrant at Job’s residence and seized larger quantities of methamphetamine, scales, paraphernalia, and evidence of contamination; the warrant relied in part on wiretap intercepts of co-defendant Rodriguez.
- Job was tried and convicted of (1) conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and (2) possession with intent to distribute; sentenced to 365 months plus lifetime supervised release.
- Job moved to suppress evidence from the Oct. 3 person and car searches and from the Dec. 5 home search; the district court denied suppression without an evidentiary hearing.
- The Ninth Circuit: (a) held the person and car searches were unlawful and suppressed that evidence, (b) upheld the home search warrant after excising tainted material, (c) affirmed the conspiracy conviction but vacated the possession-with-intent conviction and vacated the sentence for Rule 32/sentencing finding defects, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Job) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of pat-down/search of Job’s person (Oct. 3) | Officers lacked reasonable suspicion; they were unaware of Job’s probation waiver before the search | Pat-down justified by probation search waiver or Terry protective concerns | Pat-down unlawful: waiver could not justify a search unknown to officers; record lacks reasonable suspicion; evidence suppressed |
| Lawfulness of warrantless car search (Oct. 3) | Car search was fruit of unlawful person search; waiver not shown to be known before car search | Automobile exception based on pipe; waiver justified search (officers learned waiver before searching car) | Car search unlawful: pipe was tainted fruit; record unclear that officers knew waiver before search; evidence suppressed |
| Validity of residence search warrant (Dec. 5) | Warrant affidavit relied on tainted Oct. 3 events and contained conclusory statements; lacks probable cause for home search | Affidavit contained independent untainted evidence (wire intercepts, pen registers, surveillance, CS reports) | Warrant valid after excising tainted material: remaining evidence supported probable cause; home-search evidence admissible |
| Harmlessness & convictions/sentencing | Illegally seized Oct. 3 evidence infected both counts and sentence; sentencing findings insufficient | Even without Oct. 3 evidence, conspiracy conviction stands; sentencing increases supported by record | Admission of Oct.3 evidence was harmless as to Count 1 (conspiracy) but not Count 5 (possession with intent) — Count 5 vacated and remanded; sentence vacated for Rule 32 deficiencies and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. King, 736 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2013) (approved suspicionless searches under probation search condition for violent felons)
- United States v. Lara, 815 F.3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016) (probationers on nonviolent drug offenses retain greater privacy; King limited to violent felons)
- United States v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2008) (officers unaware of parole search condition cannot retroactively justify a suspicionless search)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (reasonable suspicion supports brief stop and limited frisk)
- Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1990) (scope and limits of protective sweep incident to arrest)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (U.S. 1993) (limits on pat-down/frisk and plain-feel doctrine)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional error is harmless only if it did not contribute to verdict beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Biao Huang, 687 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2012) (§2D1.1(b)(5) increase can apply where drugs were imported by someone, but whether defendant must know of importation is unresolved)
- United States v. Nora, 765 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (tainted affidavit material may be excised; warrant stands if remaining affidavit establishes probable cause)