United States v. Juan Pineda-Moreno
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16294
9th Cir.2012Background
- DEA suspected Pineda-Moreno of growing marijuana in southern Oregon based on fertilizer purchase and large-scale purchases in May–June 2007.
- Agents surveilled travel in Pineda-Moreno’s Jeep and a second vehicle, tracking behavior suggesting a remote grow operation.
- From July to September 2007, agents attached mobile tracking devices to the Jeep’s underside on seven occasions in public areas.
- Devices pin-pointed locations to two suspected grow sites; some attachments occurred on public streets, parking lots, and Pineda-Moreno’s driveway.
- September 12, 2007, stop occurred; occupants were detained for immigration violations; Pineda-Moreno consented to a search of his mobile home, yielding marijuana in bags.
- Pineda-Moreno moved to suppress the tracking-evidence as Fourth Amendment violations; district court denied; he pled guilty to conspiracy with a reserved appeal on suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attaching tracking devices to a vehicle was a Fourth Amendment search. | Pineda-Moreno contends it was a search and unlawful. | US argues prior precedent permitted tracking as non-search. | Not warranted; court relies on Jones on remand but upholds non-suppression based on prior binding precedent. |
| Whether the evidence derived from tracking devices should be excluded under the exclusionary rule after Jones. | Pineda-Moreno seeks suppression due to Jones-based unlawfulness. | US claims objective reasonable reliance on binding precedent avoids suppression. | Suppression not required; evidence saved by reliance on then-binding precedent. |
| Whether 2007--era circuit precedent authorized driveway or public-area attachments. | Pineda-Moreno argues lack of privacy in driveway invalidates reliance. | US asserts precedent allowed public-area attachments and driveway entries were permissible. | Attachments in public areas authorized; driveway evidence considered cumulative. |
| Whether the remaining evidence aside from driveway attachments justified the stop. | Suppression still warranted due to Jones-based unlawfulness. | Independent evidence before and after devices supported stop in good faith. | Yes; independent evidence sufficed to justify the stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McIver, 186 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1999) (tracking-device placement not a Fourth Amendment search)
- United States v. Hufford, 539 F.2d 32 (9th Cir. 1976) (monitoring movements on public roads not a search)
- United States v. Miroyan, 577 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1978) (monitorial use of electronic tracking device not a search)
- Maisano v. Welcher, 940 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1991) (driveway privacy depends on enclosure, visibility, and activity)
- United States v. Magana, 512 F.2d 1169 (9th Cir. 1975) (driveway semiprivate area doctrine)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011) (reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent avoids suppression)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012) (GPS tracking of vehicle constitutes a search)