United States v. Uu, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1209

Background

On February 14, 2017 MPD officers arrested Koa Akira Uu on a bench warrant after stopping him on a motorcycle; he was wearing a backpack and told officers “you cannot search my backpack.”
Officer Abarra handled the backpack at the scene, felt an object he immediately recognized as a pistol grip, then manipulated the pack further to confirm it was a firearm; officers seized the backpack as evidence.
The backpack was delivered to MPD evidence; Detective Schmitt (assigned to the case) was on vacation until Feb. 16 and did not learn of the seizure until Feb. 24.
Schmitt consulted prosecutors on Feb. 24 but did not present a search-warrant affidavit to a judicial officer until March 6 (20 days after seizure); the warrant was executed March 8 and a firearm was recovered.
Uu moved to suppress the firearm on the grounds (1) Officer Abarra exceeded the plain-touch doctrine by manipulating the backpack and (2) the 20-day delay obtaining a warrant was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
The court found no adequate explanation for the 20-day delay, concluded the delay violated the Fourth Amendment, applied the exclusionary rule, and granted the motion to suppress.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers’ handling of the backpack exceeded the plain-touch/plain-feel doctrine	Abarra manipulated the backpack to discover the gun, so discovery was unlawful	Government contended the firearm was discovered lawfully under plain-touch/plain-feel	Court did not resolve this issue because suppression was warranted on delay grounds
Whether a 20-day delay between seizure and obtaining a warrant was reasonable	Delay was unreasonable and violated Fourth Amendment; property retained without justification	Government argued interest in recovering a firearm and relied on diminished possessory interest and alleged diligence	Court held the 20-day unexplained delay was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment; evidence suppressed
Effect of Uu’s probation and failure to seek return on privacy interest	Uu’s probation and failure to request return diminished his possessory interest but did not eliminate it	Government asserted diminished expectation of privacy and probation terms permitted searches	Court recognized diminished interest but found it insufficient to justify the unexplained 20-day delay
Applicability of good-faith exception to exclusionary rule	Exclusion required because delay was unreasonable; good-faith exceptions do not apply to unexplained warrant delays	Government urged good-faith reliance arguments	Court held Leon/Herring good-faith doctrine inapplicable under Ninth Circuit precedent for delay-based violations and applied exclusionary rule

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2015) (reasonableness of delay determined by totality of circumstances)
United States v. Hernandez, 313 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (police diligence and competing demands relevant to delay analysis)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) (balance intrusion against governmental interest)
United States v. Laist, 702 F.3d 608 (11th Cir. 2012) (government must diligently obtain warrant despite diminished possessory interest)
United States v. Burgard, 675 F.3d 1029 (7th Cir. 2012) (unexplained delay suggests state indifference; possessory interest remains relevant)
Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001) (Fourth Amendment limits on temporary seizures and conditions for police restraints)
United States v. Song Ja Cha, 597 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2010) (seizure limitations protect against unreasonable police behavior and ensure judicial determination)
United States v. Dass, 849 F.2d 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (multi-day delays in obtaining warrants for seized parcels can be unreasonable)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (limits of exclusionary rule where police errors are objectively reasonable)
United States v. Gill, 280 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2002) (privacy interest in package contents, not delivery speed)
United States v. Mitchell, 565 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2009) (prompt search protects return of property when no contraband is found)
United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2011) (valid consent negates possessory-interest infringement)