United States v. Keith Hopkins
701 F. App'x 636
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Keith Hopkins, a parolee, was the target of a warrantless search; the district court suppressed evidence and the government appealed.
- Officers initially believed Hopkins lived in a motorhome at 2187 (registration and sex-offender registry supported that).
- A 14-year-old at 2187 said he was Hopkins’s nephew and that Hopkins had moved to 2225 to live with his girlfriend; he also identified Hopkins’s car parked at 2225.
- Police corroborated the tip by confirming the car was registered to Hopkins and that the car registration listed apartment A at 2225 as the address.
- A tenant at apartment A denied Hopkins lived there but appeared nervous; the district court made no evidentiary findings (no hearing), so the panel viewed facts in the light most favorable to the government.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had probable cause to treat 2225 apt A as Hopkins’s residence for a parole-condition search | Government: nephew’s in-person tip + car registration tied to Hopkins and apt A provided probable cause under totality of circumstances | Hopkins: conflicting records (motorhome registration, sex-offender registry) and tenant denial undercut probable cause | The court held there was probable cause to believe Hopkins lived at apt A and vacated the suppression order; remanded for further proceedings |
| How to evaluate corroborated in-person tips versus stale records | Government: corroboration and details provided by a known informant support reliability | Hopkins: old registrations and registry entries rebut the tip | The court applied a common-sense totality-of-circumstances standard and found the corroborated tip persuasive |
| Weight of co-resident denial to negate probable cause | Government: co-resident denial is one factor among many | Hopkins: tenant’s denial undermines the tip and corroboration | Court: co-resident denials often carry little weight; here denial only slightly detracted from other evidence |
| Standard of review and factual resolution on suppression without an evidentiary hearing | Government: appellate review de novo; facts viewed favorably to non-movant when no hearing held | Hopkins: district court suppressed without resolving factual disputes | Court: reviewed de novo, credited government’s version for now, and remanded (district court may hold a hearing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Motley v. Parks, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (parolee-search rule requires probable cause that parolee resides at premises)
- United States v. Williams, 846 F.3d 303 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090 (2014) (probable cause requires a fair probability; practical common-sense standard)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (probable cause based on facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe a fact)
- United States v. Mayer, 560 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) (tips can supply probable cause when indicia of reliability and police corroboration exist)
- United States v. Howard, 447 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2006) (co-resident denials often accorded little import)
- United States v. Grandberry, 730 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses limits of relying on certain tip factors)
- United States v. King, 687 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2012) (overruled parts of earlier parole-search precedents)