United States v. Kevin Peterson, 902 F.3d 1016

On Aug. 14, 2015 King County officers arrested Kevin Peterson on outstanding misdemeanor warrants; officers removed and searched his backpack after handcuffing him and found a stolen handgun.
Peterson was booked at King County Jail and later indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
Peterson moved to suppress the handgun, arguing the warrantless search was unlawful; the district court denied suppression, finding the gun inevitably would have been discovered during an inventory search at booking.
At sentencing the probation office treated a prior Washington first-degree robbery conviction as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 and applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) and a two-level § 3C1.2 enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight. Peterson objected.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of suppression (inevitable discovery) and the § 3C1.2 enhancement, but held Washington first-degree robbery is not a categorical match for the Guidelines’ definition of a "crime of violence," vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the handgun must be suppressed or admissible under the inevitable discovery doctrine	Gov: Even if initial search was unlawful, the gun inevitably would have been found during routine inventory search at booking	Peterson: If booked only on misdemeanor warrants he could post bail and avoid booking/inventory; thus discovery was not inevitable	Affirmed: Court holds officers would have booked Peterson on obstruction/resisting charges (no bail set) and inventory would have occurred; inevitable discovery applies
Whether Washington first-degree robbery counts as a "crime of violence" under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)	Gov: Washington first-degree robbery matches the enumerated offense "robbery"/"extortion" and thus qualifies	Peterson: WA statute is broader because it permits threats directed at property, which surpasses generic robbery/extortion definitions	Reversed: WA first-degree robbery is not a categorical match (statute includes fear of injury to property only) — enhancement vacated
Whether § 3C1.2 two-level enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight was proper	Gov: Peterson’s violent kicking while restrained and conduct during transport created substantial risk and was "during flight"	Peterson: (argued against enhancement)	Affirmed: Court finds conduct could be in preparation for flight/resisting arrest and posed substantial risk; enhancement proper

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (establishing exclusionary rule)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)
Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (inventory searches incident to incarceration lawful)
United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044 (standard of review for inevitable discovery mixed questions)
United States v. Negrete-Gonzales, 966 F.2d 1277 (review standards for suppression findings)
United States v. Andrade, 784 F.2d 1431 (inventory search may cure unconstitutional search incident to arrest)
United States v. Edling, 895 F.3d 1153 (state robbery statute that covers threats to property is not categorical match to generic robbery)
Becerril-Lopez v. United States, 541 F.3d 881 (discussion of generic robbery definition)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach to prior offenses)
United States v. Simmons, 782 F.3d 510 (application of categorical approach)
United States v. Robinson, 869 F.3d 933 (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation)