United States v. Johnny Casel Nora
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16677
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Officers saw Johnny Nora on a sidewalk/porch area at night; seconds later he ran into his home holding a blue-steel semi‑automatic handgun and shut the door. Officers shouted, ordered him out, and later procured his surrender after surrounding the house.
- After exiting, Nora was handcuffed and pat‑down searched outside the house; officers found marijuana and over $1,000 cash, and read Miranda warnings and obtained incriminating post‑arrest statements admitting drug possession and gang membership. A background check revealed prior firearms convictions.
- Officers obtained a search warrant whose affidavit relied on (a) the officers’ observation of Nora with the handgun, (b) the cash and marijuana found on his person, (c) Nora’s post‑arrest statements, and (d) his criminal history. The search yielded narcotics, multiple firearms, cash, and drug‑paraphernalia from various locations in the residence and garage.
- Nora was federally charged; he conditionally pled guilty but appealed the denial of his suppression motion contesting the warrant’s validity as infected by an unlawful arrest and attendant searches/statements.
- The district court denied suppression; the Ninth Circuit considered (1) whether officers had probable cause to arrest, (2) whether the arrest violated Payton, (3) whether evidence seized incident to that arrest and Nora’s statements must be suppressed, and (4) whether, after excising tainted material, the remaining affidavit supported the warrant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nora) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest for carrying a loaded firearm (Cal. Pen. Code § 25850(a)) | Officers lacked probable cause because porch is not public and they did not know gun was carried on public sidewalk or that it was loaded | Officers had fair probability that Nora carried the gun from the sidewalk to the porch and that a semi‑automatic carried at night was loaded | Probable cause existed to arrest for § 25850(a) |
| Payton violation / exigent‑circumstances exception for in‑home arrest | Arrest violated Payton because officers forced Nora out of his home without an arrest warrant; no exigency justified warrantless in‑home arrest | Exigent circumstances justified ordering Nora out and arresting him without a warrant | Arrest violated Payton; no exigency (offense was a misdemeanor, no imminent threat, house surrounded) |
| Suppression of pat‑down seizure and post‑arrest statements (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree) | Cash/marijuana and statements flowed from unlawful Payton arrest and must be suppressed | Government relied on Harris to admit out‑of‑home statements when probable cause exists; argued some evidence independent | Court suppressed pat‑down evidence (cash/marijuana) and post‑arrest statements as fruits of the Payton violation; Harris distinguished because the search of person was product of the unlawful home arrest |
| Warrant validity after excising tainted material; scope re: firearms and other contraband | The warrant affidavit is invalid because it relied on tainted items and remaining untainted facts do not support probable cause for broad firearms or narcotics/gang clauses | Remaining untainted facts (observation of gun; Nora’s criminal history) sustained probable cause for warrant or at least for firearm seizure; plain‑view or severance doctrines apply | After excising tainted evidence, affidavit supported only probable cause to search for the specific handgun observed; the firearms clause was overbroad and the narcotics/gang clauses lacked probable cause. The warrant was invalid in whole and all evidence seized under it suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (Fourth Amendment bars warrantless in‑home arrests absent warrant or exception)
- New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (probable cause arrest in home made without warrant does not automatically bar use of statements made outside the home)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (hesitancy to find exigent circumstances for relatively minor offenses)
- Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635 (suppression of pat‑down evidence after Payton violation)
- United States v. Blake, 632 F.2d 731 (9th Cir.) (suppression rule applied when arrest and search intruded into home)
- United States v. Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.) (confession treated as fruit of illegal search when defendant observed unlawful search and later confessed)
- United States v. Al‑Azzawy, 784 F.2d 890 (9th Cir.) (exigency found where defendant was violent and posed immediate danger)
- Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir.) (limits on inference from observation of single firearm to general stock of weapons)
- United States v. Weber, 923 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.) (probable cause for a narrow item does not automatically support broader, anticipatory searches)
- United States v. Reed, 15 F.3d 928 (9th Cir.) (tainted affidavit material can be excised and warrant sustained if remaining facts independently establish probable cause)