United States v. Don Michael Hudson

hand, ry the other by government. On owner- Barnes shirt or Johnnie celot Montgomery to take the stand and was free would, turn, an infer- purportedly be ship concerning fit of the any matters his discuss found ownership of the cocaine of ence helpful might he felt to him. shirts that bag Montgomery’s wrapped in the shirts would, turn, ownership which cocaine question not a At issue was blood possess Montgomery did prove that voice, type, fingerprints, height, stride or luggage. This four-tiered drugs in his found reasonably were characteristics that similar according required, to the approach was would run identification. immutable and to court, straight government’s to offset the quest Montgomery was not limited of the shirts in direct rebuttal forward use by ownership disclaim Fifth Amendment that he did Montgomery’s claim testimonial already he had In es- protections waived. found in a garments that were not own the sence, to use court now allows him for Mont- claimed to At best bag he own. jurisprudence Fifth Amendment as both gomery, leaping impli- inferences and these through ownership an inference of sword barely relevant. cations were by escape tes- the Barneses and shield timonial rebuttal from the Barnes brothers. time Supreme has said The Court short, the trial court was correct in its entitle is no constitutional again that there ruling wrong evidentiary and this court is last present all relevant facts. Just ment to There was no abuse find otherwise. proposi “the term the Court reiterated discretion. guarantees Due Process Clause tion Finally, in support adduced evidence is under facts right introduce all relevant error, Egelhoff, guilt, evidentiary if Montgomery’s simply indefensible.” Montana 2013, 2017, 135 beyond U.S. -, -, any, clearly a reason- was harmless if or Sir Lancelot So, forcing the able doubt. Even Johnnie even if L.Ed.2d 361 shirts, fact not allow precluded is not owned the such should try the shirts Barneses to Amendment, escape consequences Montgomery and the evidence by the Fifth relevant, having posses- in his marginally grams 996.3 of cocaine least be at deemed bag, have in his toiletries whomever to exclude evidence sion trial court’s decision actually Accordingly, I the cocaine. 403 must be owned Rule of Evidence under Federal very affirm. abuse would under deferential evaluated standard. United States discretion Williams, (8th Cir.1996). correctly government argued at trial example of classic this evidence .a prohibited by Rule 403. information America, UNITED STATES marginal proffered of the evidence relevance Plaintiff-Appellee, clearly outweighed by prejudice government. potential prejudice HUDSON, Defendant-

First, indicated, Don Michael this would have as earlier Appellant. thinly dramatization been a veiled Barneses. stance of the Fifth Amendment No. 95-50359. Second, from ei- since evidence testimonial Appeals, Court of precluded their invoca- ther witness was Ninth Circuit. Amendment, no there was tion of the Fifth 8,May Argued 1996. accuracy implica- and Submitted way to examine proffered acts. For advanced tions May 1996. Submission Withdrawn instance, Montgomery arrested on Octo- June 1996. Resubmitted 27,1994, early proffer was made ber Filed Nov. 1996. Thus, whether either Johnnie June weight undergone loss or Lancelot had or Sir light on

weight gain shed or could otherwise beyond inqui- ownership shirts was firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 922(g)(1). appeals the district suppress court’s of his denial motion to evi- during dence seized from his bedroom contemporaneous arrest and a search of the premises. Hudson advances three chal- lenges appeal. argues He that the war- produced drugs rantless search which underlying and firearms his conviction was pursuant pretextual undertaken ato arrest. He also contends of the Bureau Tobacco, Alcohol, of [“ATF”] Firearms violated the require- “knock and announce” § set forth in ment 18 U.S.C. and that ATF scope exceeded the of the search incident plain to arrest and the view produced drugs search that and the fire- arms. jurisdiction pursuant

We have to 28 U.S.C. § and we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL

BACKGROUND February In receiving after tipa informant, from a confidential the ATF com- investigation possible menced an into federal weapons narcotics and violations members Motorcycle Gang. Hessians Outlaw ATF The was told the confidential infor- mant that Hudson was an associate of the gang, Hessian and that he manufactured CA, Moore, Ana, Dwight B. Santa for de- methamphetamine for gang. During fendant-appellant. investigation, course of the ATF undercover Wolfe, Stephen G. Assistant United States agents and the confidential informant visited Attorney, CA, Angeles, Los for plaintiff-ap- alleged the Hessians’ gather “clubhouse” to pellee. incriminating information. The informant possible discussed with purchase Hudson the of methamphetamine possible trade methamphetamine of ephedrine, ingre- for methamphetamine. of dient informant The also witnessed Hudson methamphet- trade glassware might amine for be used in REINHARDT, Before: KOZINSKI and methamphetamine. the manufacture HAWKINS, Judges. Circuit Shortly thereafter, purchased the informant n % of an methamphetamine ounce of HAWKINS, from MICHAEL DALY Circuit Hudson. Judge: Defendant-appellant Don investigation Michael Hudson gang the Hessian cul- tp

entered a guilty plea conditional charges procurement minated in the of several feder- possession with intent to distribute meth- al search warrants and arrest for warrants amphetamine in violation of 21 gang not, U.S.C. several members. The ATF did 841(a)(1) § being possession however, a felon in obtain a federal arrest warrant or crimes. The ATF against defendant Hudson. violent undercover search warrant agent by gang also told investigation, had been members agent charge if Bettendorf, he would killed he were discovered Agent Larry had contacted the At to be law enforcement officer. the time had Attorney’s office and arrest, Hudson’s state federal prosecutors would learned that federal officials Hudson was an believed associate prosecute on the evidence Hudson based They gang. also knew that addition, against him. Hessian ATF had collected conviction, prior drug had a Hudson did not Agent believed that he Bettendorf methamphetamine and knew that he had sold to obtain a search have sufficient evidence addition, to the informant. house, informant for Hudson’s since Hudson’s warrant agent charge had told DEA Hud- methamphetamine place had taken sale previously he had son’s arrest that seen fire- and at different locale: the months earlier glassware arms and associated with metham- Hessians’ clubhouse. phetamine manufacture in bedroom prosecutors did not Aware that federal parents’ at his house. plan prosecute based on the evi- approached At the time collected, Agent ATF Betten- dence the house, light or television on in one Attorney dorf an Assistant District contacted the bedrooms. One of the officers knocked Orange County to seek a state arrest loudly on front Hudson’s door and announced against Hudson. Based on the evi- warrant presence purpose. The front and door sold % of an ounce of dence that Hudson unlatched, swung open was and with the ATF’s methamphetamine to the confidential waiting for a re- officer’s knock. Without informant, á Agent Bettendorf obtained state sponse, immediately the officers entered the Orange for arrest warrant Hudson from house. Attorney. County At Assistant District hearing, Agent Betten- suppression Hudson’s through The officers first the house moved “normally” ap- not dorf testified he did security They every sweep. in a entered Orange ply for state arrest warrants. room secured the individuals found. and. County Attorney District testified Assistant in the The officers located Hudson southwest hearing at the that was not “usual” for standing He bedroom. in one corner of agents ATF to ask him for the issue federal him the room. The officers ordered out warrants, was “not of state arrest but that it room, him, removed him from handcuffed first it had-occurred. testified time” He house, sweep. and continued their any illegal felony that the sale of narcotic is a completed After the officers had then- in California. sweep, the room to one them returned to against All of the warrants conduct a search incident to arrest. About the Hessian gang, including passed state warrant three minutes between the arrest and arrest Hudson, Septem- agent’s on return to the room. On the were executed standing lay ground Both and law where had been ber state Hudson agent opened the rifle agents enforcement executed the state arrest a rifle ease. The case parents’ At a rifle. In one corner of the room warrant Hudson’s house. and found a.m., table, top glassware gathered around 3:30 the officers near was on which sat appeared agent to At the time arrest was contain meth- the house. executed, Agent Drug amphetamine. Bettendorf was con- Enforcement Administra- (“DEA”) agent charge about tion of the arrest tacted and informed the rifle operation possessed glassware, he on following informa- told the officers site respect alleged that he seek a search warrant based tion with to Hudson and his would gang: discovery on Before associates the Hessian One of the those materials. however, obtained, agents participated ATF who had a search warrant was offi- undercover lawn, glassware to front investigation gang in the had heard Hessian cers moved the toxicity citing potential “anger concerns about the members make statements flammability antipathy” law officials of the chemicals contained about enforcement A glassware. state lab technician and had heard them admit their involvement —ed, -, subsequently samples arrived obtain U.S. -, aff'd, substances. L.Ed.2d 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 After Su Although state and federal officials had preme Whren, opinion Court issued its warrant, jointly a state arrest executed present supplemental Hudson moved to County Attorney Orange Assistant District briefing application on the Whren to on prosecuted charges. Hudson state never brief, supplemental case. his Hudson Agent request, At Bettendorf s the Assistant argument: raises alternative con He Attorney charges District dismissed state perform tends that we should the “balanc prosecutors because federal had elected to analysis ing” applica described Whren as charges. indict Hudson on federal Hudson ble to “searches or seizures in an conducted charged in a three-count federal indict- extraordinary manner.” We novo review de methamphet- ment with intent distribute seizure, the lawfulness of a search and amine, during drug-traf- use of a firearm review we for clear error the district court’s crime, ficking being possession a felon in underlying findings. factual United States of a firearm. Hernandez, (9th 55 F.3d Cir initially suppress moved to .1995) Becker, (citing United States v. grounds found his evidence house (9th Cir.1994)). merely pretext the state arrest was for the “ to search evidence of federal It principle is a well-settled ‘an Thereafter,* supplemented he crimes. pretext be used as a to search suppress, motion alleging the ATF for evidence without a search warrant where agents had violated knock and announce ordinarily required one would under the ” statute, § 18 U.S.C. and that Fourth Amendment.’ United States v. glassware search of the rifle case and the Mota, Cir.1993) it invalid because was conducted without States, (quoting Williams v. United a search The warrant. district court denied 159, 161 Cir.1969), aff'd, 401 U.S. supplemental both Hudson’s initial and mo- (1971)). S.Ct. suppress. tions to deciding In the standard we must guilty a plea Hudson entered conditional to apply to pre- determine whether an arrest is two of the three counts contained in the textual, we note that the various standards possession indictment: with intent to distrib- past reflected in our appear decisions to have ute methamphetamine in violation of 21 superseded by been Supreme Court’s 841(a)(1) being § pos- U.S.C. a in felon States, in recent decision Whren v. United session in firearm violation of 18 U.S.C. — U.S. -, 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d § 922(g)(1). timely appealed. Hudson (1996).1 Whren, Supreme Court clari proper fied the test determining for whether ANALYSIS temporary stop traffic pretext was a for a search. The Court in pretext 1. Whren held that a Whether the arrest awas for stop pretextual traffic is not where a there is search “probable to cause believe that a violation of initially argued that his ar Whren, -U.S. at -, law has occurred.” rest pre under state warrant was a mere 116 S.Ct. at 1773. text to search his house for evidence to support Whren, Following oral ar charges. temporarily officers de- gument appeal, in this we withdrew tained motorist whom the case from pending Supreme probable submission cause to believe had committed a Whren, Court’s decision in United States v. civil traffic violation. In the course of the (D.C.Cir.1995), 53 F.3d 371 grant- cert. temporary detention of the motorist and his judicial 1. We governing note a new rule Kentucky, time the rale is announced. Griffith procedure applied criminal is to be retroactively 708, 716, cases, federal, to all pending state that are L.Ed.2d 649 on direct review or otherwise not final officers, indisputably by subjective members of an un- driven consider passenger, ations,” since, squad, appeared asking spotted what whether “[i]nstead vice dercover plain view inside the proper be crack cocaine officer had the individual state Charged mind, ask, nar- with various federal petitioners vehicle. would have us violations, (based effect, defendants Whren general police prac cotics on whether drug tices) on suppress the evidence plausible moved to believe that officer stop was a grounds that the officers’ traffic proper had the state mind.” Id. Such an their car for evidence pretext Court, mere opined ignore inquiry, would drugs. “Fourth Amendment’s concern with ‘reason ableness,’ allows certain actions to [which] upheld validity Supreme The Court circumstances, taken in whatever the certain stop probable grounds the traffic at -, subjective intent.” Id. S.Ct. at support indisputably existed standard would also substitute stop. The court thus reduced the Whren “police practices,” “vary enforcement pretext inquiry “probable inquiry, to a cause” place place from time and from to time” explaining that “the constitutional reason for Fourth Amendment search seizure stops” is to ableness of traffic be determined standards, which are not “so variable.” ordinary, probable-cause “an Fourth through at -, analysis.” Id. Amendment S.Ct. If governs we conclude that Whren our at 1774. ease, analysis of the arrest this then the rejected rejection expressly Supreme firm stan- Court Whren Court’s subjective pretext, dismissing flatly dard —whether “a reasonable officer in test [ that “ulterior motives can invali the same circumstances would have made ] the notion justifiable stop given” appears police conduct that on the the reasons date argument: cause to believe that foreclose Hudson’s first that the basis at -, of law has occurred.” Id. ATF officers would not have arrested Hud- violation their, son, (distinguishing at 1773 Colorado v. absent desire to search Hudson’s S.Ct. Bertine, 367, 372, 107 738, 741, house, charge drug U.S. because state (1987), “major and New York v. for which the ATF would 93 L.Ed.2d offense” 691, 716-17, 27, 107 Burger, 482 n. have arrested him. otherwise (1987), 2651, n. L.Ed.2d 601 acknowledge that involved a Whren involving conducted “in the cases searches context from that in- somewhat different cause”). Indeed, probable absence forth here: Whereas Whren set volved ... emphasized that it had held Court “never determining for whether a standard traffic objective that an officer’s motive invalidates stop pretextual, here is we are confronted justifiable ly under the Fourth behavior allegation that his arrest defendant’s Amendment; repeatedly [had] but held and view, however, pretextual. In our — Whren, contrary.” U.S. at asserted analysis governs Whren this case. (citations omitted). -, 116 at 1774 S.Ct. that, begin by noting determining in We Having “[sjubjective inten- concluded that police pretext action is a mere for a whether play enforcement no [of officials] tions law search, long prin we have identical followed ordinary, probable-cause Fourth role stop traffic context and the ciples both the reject- analysis,” Amendment the Court next Mota, Compare 982 F.2d at arrest context. proposed pretext: ed the defendants’ test Smith, (arrest), v. 1385 and United States stop should be The defendants insisted that Cir.1986) (9th (arrest), with 802 F.2d 1119 pretextual if officer’s conduct deemed “the (traffic Hernandez, stop); 55 F.3d at 445 prac- materially police from usual deviated Millan, 36 F.3d United States v. tices, officer in so that reasonable Cir.1994) (traffic stop), v. the same circumstances would not have (9th Cir.1994) (traffic Cannon, stop given.” for Id. made the reasons stop). rejected (emphasis The Court this added). however, significant, “objective” is is that purportedly standard. It ex- What more application of “plainly dictates plained that the standard was and Whren’s rationale to the arrest this ease. Whren standard because the or “search[ ] [had seizure[] “police made clear where conduct manner, Whren extraordinary been] conducted justifiable probable the basis of [ ] unusually harmful to an privacy individuals’s violation of law has oc to believe physical or even interests.” Id. Such cases curred,” may inquire we into whether the force, deadly include seizure means of id. improper or officer’s behavior motives Garner, 1, (citing Tennessee U.S. typical practice of from the reason deviated 1694, (1985)); S.Ct. 85 L.Ed.2d 1 unan able officers. Because the action in home, entry (citing nounced into a id. Wilson subject ordinary, “an ease —arrest—is — Arkansas, U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. probable-cause analy Fourth Amendment (1995)); 131 L.Ed.2d entry into a home — Whren, sis,” at -, U.S. at warrant, (citing without id. Welsh v. Wis conclude that Whren forth we sets consin, applicable alleged standard arrests be (1984)); physical penetration L.Ed.2d pretextual. body, at -, id. 116 S.Ct. at Lee, (citing Winston U.S. here, Applying the Whren standard (1985)). 84 L.Ed.2d 662 sup we conclude that Hudson’s arrest was ported probable cause. The evidence “balancing” Hudson insists that such a Agent presented Orange Bettendorf to the required here because this case involved a County Attorney Assistant District demon dwelling and because the officers “entered adequate probable strated cause to believe premises search, purpose for the drug felony sale had occurred. Hud though they even only had a valid warrant not contend that there was a son does lack of for his arrest for an unrelated minor crime.” warrant, probable support cause to the state Arkansas, He invokes Wilson v. suggest nor does he the warrant was -, improperly obtained. ATF Because the case, In that state law enforcement officers agent pursuant the arrest warrant obtained walked into a defendant’s home and an cause, conclude, showing to a we nounced that were there to arrest her Whren, following that the arrest was valid. Holding and search her home. argument Hudson’s alternative rests “knock principle and announce” that existed supplemental on dicta Whren. In his part at common law is of the Fourth Amend brief, Hudson contends that the facts of this ment’s analysis, “reasonableness” Su subject make and search preme Court reversed the defendant’s con “balancing” analysis suggested Whren would viction, remanding for a determination applicable to “searches or seizures con whether the officers’ actions were “unreason extraordinary ducted in an manner.” Id. able” under the Fourth Amendment. -, 116 S.Ct. at 1776. -, 115 S.Ct. at 1918-19. because, view, disagree po- in our begin by noting that Hudson’s latter does, lice action this case not fall under the argument analy foreclosed the Whren exception” “rare involving of cases “searches sis, which unequivocally stated that officers’ extraordinary seizures conducted in an subjective motives are relevant where acknowledged manner.” Id. Whren that “in probable support particular cause exists to a principle every case, Fourth Amendment at -, police action. Id. 116 S.Ct. at 1773. it upon since turns a ‘reasonableness’ deter- that, although nextWe note mination, action balancing a involves of all relevant in this case dwelling, arrest at a explained, however, factors.” The Court that probable nonetheless the officers had balancing “the result of cause not in doubt” And, to probable explain below, where arrest Hudson. as we support cause exists to case, question. action in the officers in this It unlike the did distin- officers in Wilson, guish exceptions” “rare principle: to did knock and announce their au cases where thority purpose, jus existed but and were therefore balancing where a government awaiting interests tified in not response a before en against suspect’s necessary tering. interests was

1417 Cir.1980), denied, 1004, requirement 450 cert. 101 knock and announce (1981)). Exigent S.Ct. challenge to the denial next “ circumstances are ‘those circumstances arresting his is that suppress to motion person would cause reasonable to believe the “knock announce” violated entry necessary prevent ... was to § 3109 at the time requirement of 18 U.S.C. per physical to the officers or other harm the state arrest warrant they executed sons, evidence, of relevant destruction illegal argues He that was him. escape suspect, or some other through his house for the officers to enter consequence improperly frustrating legiti immediately knocking on open after door ” Arias, mate law 923 enforcement efforts.’ identity. He announcing door and Alfonso, (citing F.2d 1391 United States v. disagrees the district court’s conclusion (9th Cir.1985)). 728, 742 response that the failure await officers’ justified by exigency.” “mild particular, we have held that novo a district court’s We review de exigency” justify is sufficient to simul “mild validity protective of a determination entry entry or when can taneous immediate “knock including compliance with the sweep, accomplished physical any without de requirement of 18 U.S.C. and announce” Becker, property. 23 F.3d at struction of Arias, F.2d § 3109. United States omitted). (citation Arias, Accord Cir.) (9th (citing United States omitted). (citation exigen F.2d at 1391 Mild (9th Cir.) McConney, 728 F.2d cy exists where “there is likelihood that the denied, (en banc), cert. 469 U.S. try dwelling] escape, will occupants [of denied, (1984)), 101, L.Ed.2d 46 cert. resist, destroy McConney, or evidence.” 130, 116 L.Ed.2d 97 cautioned, however, F.2d at 1206. We have exigent justi circumstances Whether “[wjhether present the circumstances to adhere to knock fied failure exigency justify [to sufficient the officers’ § is a provisions announce of 18 U.S.C. necessarily judgment. An actions] involves question and law that we re mixed of fact unjustified fear an officer sincere but Becker, de novo. United States view Otherwise, noncomplianee. cannot excuse Cir.1994) (citing occupants’ privacy protection inter 1204-05). McConney, 728 F.2d at depend than an est would on no more offi and announce rule is contained knock anxiety.” Id. cer’s provides: § in 18 U.S.C. open any or The officer break outer facts Applying this standard house, any or inner door or window a case, exigency mild of this we conclude that therein, house, anything part or to await the officers’ failure existed excuse warrant, if, notice execute after entering the house. On refusal before authority purpose, he is refused they possessed at basis of the information necessary or when to liberate admittance warrant, executed time aiding him in the exe- person himself or a have inferred a “likelihood” the officers could the warrant. cution of “try escape, re occupants would that the sist, destroy evidence.” Id. § 3109. 18 U.S.C. requires that an officer seek- The statute agent supervising Hudson’s ar- The DEA

ing to execute a warrant to enter house suggesting facts rest was aware of several give purpose notice of his and authori- must escape likely attempt that Hudson was entry ty, enter- and must be refused before agent knew that Hud- arrest. That resist ing the house. recently methamphetamine to a had sold son informant, however, prior a and had con- recognized, confidential have We Furthermore, drug for a offense. requirements viction “compliance with section 3109’s informant had seen by exigent that same confidential may circumstances.” be excused in Hudson’s drug paraphernalia (citing F.2d United firearms and McConney, 728 at 1199 previous on a occasion. Whitney, F.2d bedroom (holding note that a defendant’s known or We first that combination of factors support finding exigency). with could suspected [that] involvement “offenses a of mild possession of firearms” often involve previous finding Our reflect decisions a finding support, part, least in of mild exigency” comparable “mild on facts. drug exigency. We have characterized Id. McConney, exigency we concluded a mild ease, dealing an offense. Id. In this as such existed where officers knew that the defen- drug prior conviction for a Hudson’s offense prior dant had conviction for a violent drug dealing and the evidence of recent dealer, felony, drug charged was a possibility might good indicated a that he be racketeering, previously and had stated that in such currently involved activities. “protect” motorcy- he Cf. would members of his Mendonsa, States v. 989 F.2d Arias, gang. Similarly, cle we held (9th Cir.1993) (defendant’s prior state exigency that mild existed where officers had robbery criminal conviction for armed insuffi- information that the defendant’s house was justify breaking cient to officers’ down of drugs, used to store and where the officer door; entry requires front forced defendant’s charge knew occupied the house was at that exigency” specific “more inferences than moment, occupants might that the feared exigency” required the “mild standard for destroying arming evidence or them- entry). non-destructive Arias, selves. Second, significant, more recent 3. The warrantless search firearms observation bed- challenge Hudson’s final information, supplied by room. That suppress denial his motion to is that the cooper- ATF confidential informant who warrantless following search of his bedroom by going investigato- ated with officials on an challenge his arrest was invalid. His is two ry drug buy, support offered solid for the fold: He first contends that the “search inci likely officers’ belief Hudson was to have dent “plain to arrest” and view” doctrines do firearms his bedroom. We have held that apply cases where an arrest warrant is suspect’s possession of firearms suffices to specific urges, executed crime. He also exigency. mild create a United States v. alternative, in the exceeded Reed, (9th Cir.1994). Reed, 15 F.3d 928 scope proper “search incident to way into forced the de- or a “plain arrest” view” search. In the room, fendant’s hotel requiring an action context searches incident to arrest and higher exigency threshold than mere mild searches, plain view we review de novo the There, exigency. exigency we concluded that application district court’s of established support entry was sufficient to a forcible legal facts to standards. United States v. suspect where the knew the had a Turner, (9th Cir.) (citation and, previ- criminal record basis omitted), denied, 830, 112 cert. 502 U.S. ous search defendant’s hotel room that 116 L.Ed.2d produced firearm, suspected might that he disagree We with Hudson’s contention that Becker, be armed. Id. at 934. 23 F.3d at Cf. Lefkowitz, United States v. (dicta stating exigen- that not even mild (1932), 76 L.Ed. prevents cy only existed where suspect- basis for application of the “search incident to arrest” ing a possessed defendant firearms was the “plain exceptions view” to the warrant weapons fact that during had been found requirement. acknowledge We that Lefkow- previous drug-dealing searches of his associ- itz invalidated a warrantless search that was homes). ates’ during undertaken an arrest. For two rea conclude the combination of sons, these however, reject we Hudson’s contention supported factors the officers’ belief that a precludes the “search incident Lefkowitz existed, mild exigency since these factors “plain exceptions arrest” and view search” permitted an inference that was a there like- requirement. point the warrant We first might lihood that Hudson escape or California, 752, resist out that Chimel v. 395 U.S. arrest. McConney, See also 2034, (1969), 728 F.2d at 89 S.Ct. and

1419 omitted). it, following Supreme the Court’s deci- de Since lower court decisions Chimel, legal to arrest” doc rules have incident sion several veloped “search the Similarly, the emerged govern “search incident to trine decades after to the Lefkowitz. settled, is well Horton “plain principles appli- view” doctrine of those have arrest.” Some 2301, 128, 110 California, S.Ct. v. U.S. to cation this case. (1990), emerged in has L.Ed.2d 112 and Concerning temporal scope the contemporary form decades after its Lefkow search, have held “search the we that a that the search itz. We next note Lefkow- “at incident to arrest” must conducted thorough and conducted itz —where officers ” ‘about the time as the arrest.’ Tur same premis prolonged search of the defendant’s ner, (quoting F.2d at 887 United States beyond the bounds of searches es—went well (9th Andersson, 1450, 1456 813 F.2d Cir. permitted contemporary the “search under 1987)). may That search be conducted short “plain and view search” incident to arrest” ly been after the arrestee has removed from doctrines. (1) area, provided the the search is arrest” an A “search incident to is the area that “within the restricted to was exception general rule war control when he arrestee’s immediate was McConney, at rantless searches. arrested,” Turner, 888, (2) 926 F.2d at justification permitting for war 1206. The occurring after the arrest but before events enforce [of rantless is the “need law search the to arrest did not render search incident weapons officers] to or other ment seize Turner, Id. In unreasonable. search might to assault an things which be used example, to we held a search incident escape, or effect an as well as officer only a few min unreasonable where to the loss or destruction of prevent need passed utes had the arrest and between Id. at 1206-07. evidence.” search, taken the next the defendant was legitimate A “search incident safety, room out of for the officers’ concern person to the arrestee’s arrest” is limited gun in the room where the defen was found control,” immediate to the area “within his arrested, dant been defendant he meaning “the area from within which of the arrest. Id. was held near the site gain possession weapon de might respect physical With Chimel, structible evidence.” U.S. search, scope of we have held that (internal 763, quotation at 2040 “encompass may search incident to arrest omitted). determining whether marks has been re room from which arrestee justified is under the “search incident search (limiting holding moved.” Id. therefore, the critical exception, to arrest” span “the facts of a short time narrow prop ... inquiry “whether the search proximity”). We have the arrestee’s close erly [the limited to the area within arres may incident to arrest also held that search the time tee’s] immediate control at justify found within opening of containers McConney, 728 F.2d at 1207. arrest.” physical the search. search, area covered evaluating validity of such a Andersson, (citing F.2d at 1455 num weigh courts such factors as the are Burnette, States v. arrested, being persons ber of the number Cir.) (citations denied, omitted), cert. positioning present, physical L.Ed.2d 312 regard premises the arrestee and the (1983)).2 open for searches of searched, guns The rationale being display officers, is “not that the arrestee or closed containers and the distance between arres (citations container, but place privacy has no interest searched. tee arguably urges to a volve[] United States v. valid search incident 2. Defendant that under Chadwick, arrest,” 53 L.Ed.2d 433 U.S. but involved a lawful custodial instead (1977), rifle case 538 glass the seizure trunk more than an hour after a locked permissible, been but containers have custody. suspects taken into New had been disagree. Su- search was not. We As the their preme Belton, 461-62, 101 York Belton, explained in New York Court 2864-65, 69 L.Ed.2d inapposite, it did not "in- Chadwick since 1420 justifies however, exception, the lawful custodial arrest the to incident arrest” since any privacy

infringement of interest ar- the the glassware record reflects that fell Belton, may New v. have.” York 453 “plain restee exception within the to the view” war- 2860, 454, 460-61, 101 S.Ct. 69 U.S. requirement. rant (1981) (upholding search 768 inci- L.Edüd jacket officer searches

dent to arrest where “plain The exception view” to the suspects during arrested traffic of one requirement warrant allows for the seizure of stop). plain evidence where criteria view two are (1) met: “the initial intrusion be must lawful” mind, principles in these we consider With (2) incriminatory “the of the evi nature sought items of evidence Hudson the two to immediately must apparent dence to the suppress below. Simpson, officers.” United States 10 F.3d by noting begin We that little time (9th Cir.1993), 647 on overruled other passed between moment Hudson was grounds, -, U.S. and the time the officer arrested returned L.Ed.2d Because we concluded to conduct the search. bedroom After valid, above that- the Hudson was Hudson and removed him from arrested we conclude that the first criterion of the room, quickly completed the officers “plain view” doctrine is satisfied. house, which sweep necessary of the security of the officers. One of the The second criterion met is where agents then returned to Hudson’s bedroom “ ‘probable the officer had associate rifle case. The searched the record indi ” property activity.’ with criminal Texas elapsed cates that a mere three minutes be Brown, 730, 741-42, 460 U.S. 103 S.Ct. tween Hudson’s arrest and the search of the 1535, 1543, (1983) (plurality) L.Ed.2d (cit Turner, case. at rifle Cf. York, (quoting Payton v. New U.S. ing approval Fleming, 1371, 1380, 63 L.Edüd 639 Cir.1982), where the Sev (1980)). By requiring incriminatory that the enth Circuit held five minutes was a “immediately nature of the ap evidence be permissible lapse time between arrest and parent,” require does doctrine arrest). weapons search for incident to possessed certainty officer “be of near as physical next consider circum- Brown, to the seizable nature items.” stances the search. When Hudson was Instead, arrested, out of called his bedroom and one flexible, cause “is a common-sense arresting officers noticed a rifle case standard,” requiring only that “the facts Although near his feet. the rifle was con- available the officer would “warrant man ease, tained was nevertheless well of reasonable caution in the that cer belief reach, within Hudson’s and thus constituted tain items be contraband ... or useful potential danger arresting officers. 741-42, evidence Id. at crime.” physical proximity rifle sup- thus (quoting S.Ct. at 1543 Carroll v. United ports a square- conclusion that the search fell States, 132, 162, 280, 288, ly spatial within the limitations of a search (1925)). 69 L.Ed. 543 incident arrest. We hold second criterion respect record less clear with plain requirement view was satisfied here. glassware. glass We know that the spotted glass The officer containers and was on ware a table located in a corner of recognized type glassware them as the bedroom, Hudson’s but the record does not often methamphetamine associated with position clear make Hudson’s relative to that Moreover, manufacture. corner when based on his Although he was arrested. law experience, district court enforcement he was glassware found that the familiar with area,” “grab precise appearance methamphetamine, within dis glassware quickly recognized tance between Hudson and the the substance metham- as rely phetamine. unclear. We need not “search prohibition Amendment’s unreason CONCLUSION a reasonable able seizures unless officer affirm denial of the district court’s stop by the would have been motivated to car suppress. motion to Whren, a the traffic laws.” desire enforce — at -, at REINHARDT, Judge, dissenting: Circuit , added). (emphasis plainclothes In Whren that, majority under the concludes performed stop, contempora a traffic officers decision in Whren Supreme Court’s recent violation, with neous an observed traffic States, U.S. -, large “immediately bags two observed (1996), subjective motives the 135 L.Ed.2d appeared to the what be crack cocaine” in “are not relevant where at -, passenger’s hands. support particular probable exists complete the of the That was extent majority interprets police action.” The also case, by present intrusion involved. that searches and seizures Whren mean contrast, pre-dawn involves the raid of subject supported by probable not cause are by large parents home of Hudson’s federal analysis balancing to a Fourth Amendment pursuant force to state arrest warrant task exception” except under “rare for their issued because a four-month- son performed in ex “searches seizures an an nar old sale one-sixteenth of ounce of traordinary Having determined manner.” quantity pros that cotics—a so small federal by supported prob that Hudson’s arrest was bring any charges. ecutors refused With cause, entry of Hudson’s able and that the peaceful waiting response for a out even “extraordinary conducted in an home not door, team of state and twelve-member manner,” majority that then concludes agents wielding weapons, federal search the search and seizure were constitutional. lights, bulletproof and a ballistic shield en concluding majority While is correct home, family tered the and hand detained constrains our decision in that Whren parents younger cuffed Hudson’s broth extent, inadvertently present case to some home, er, videotaped the interior their beyond its considerably extends that decision military like for over occupying it force scope. acknowledged As the Court actual eight In con hours. the Fourth Amendment Whren, the touch- reasonableness remains text, always the test where reasonableness analysis. stone of all Fourth. Amendment constitutionality, precisely it is such factu Here, police opera- given the nature of boundary be al occurrences that define occurred, required tion we are to exam- that not. and what is tween what is constitutional closely surrounding the ine all of the facts family Only home. invasion the Hudson Whren not a case that dealt core doing properly can we address so addressing Fourth Amendment values. case, we question of reasonableness. this question posed stops by traffic particular perform a most constitutional must careful road, traveling public of an on a automobile factors, analysis not- balancing of all relevant purport to did not evaluate Whren Court withstanding the existence of cause. constitutional highly the critical and sensitive analysis, regard even without Such heavily implicated are interests case, inevitably officers’ motives leads armed, sanctity nighttime intrusions into overwhelmingly to the conclusion family family of a home in order to arrest intrusive manner which federal did the Court consider wheth- member. Nor authority to used gross between disproportionality er a charge on a state and to collect evidence the intrusiveness severity of an offense and regarding a federal offense unreasonable could subsequent search seizure and therefore unconstitutional. within the a search unreasonable render question meaning Amendment. These particular of the Fourth Whren addressed the considerations, others, as well as dictate temporary of “whether detention of ease, also only in this but probable cause a different result who the have motorist by applying the we that result a civil viola- reach to believe has committed traffic balancing analysis appropri- Fourth kind of delicate tion was inconsistent with the determining under the aspects ate to reasonableness the intrusiveness of all of the Amendment, rather than a broad and actually dispro- Fourth search occurred. Gross disregards particular sweeping portionality rule between the intrusiveness the case at circumstances of issue. importance seizure and the relative can, underlying course, of the offense ren It is individuals are enti- well settled the der search unreasonable and therefore protec- Fourth greater tled to Amendment unconstitutional, even when- the search is privacy of their than in a tion in the homes supported by probable cause. See Tennessee temporary the deten- motor vehicle. While Garner, 1, 8, 1694, v. 471 U.S. 105 S.Ct. occupants tion vehicle and its of a motor 1699-1700, (1985); 85 1 L.Ed.2d Franklin v. freedom with of movement” and “interfere^ Foxworth, 873, Cir.1994); 31 F.3d anxiety,” can create “substantial thus Connor, 386, see also Graham v. 490 U.S. meaning within the constitutes a “seizure” 396, 1865, 1871-72, 104 109 S.Ct. 443 L.Ed.2d Amendment, Prouse, v. the Fourth Delaware (1989) (determining reasonableness under 656-57, 1391, 648, 1397-98, 440 99 U.S. S.Ct. requires the at Amendment careful Fourth (1979), purpose 59 “the L.Ed.2d 660 to all tention facts and circumstances “includ stop the resulting is detention limited issue”). ing severity of the crime at Sim cases, quite resulting most brief’ in ilarly, both timing and manner of the magnitude -in compared “limited intrusion is police conduct 661, must be considered: “reason 655, Id. at 99 to other intrusions.” S.Ct. depends only ableness on not when a 1396, seizure consequences at 1400. of such made, is but “minimal,” id., also how is carried out.” particularly intrusions are Garner, 8, 1699; 471 U.S. at 105 S.Ct. at compared when to the intrusion that accom- Franklin, 31 F.3d at panies 875. the invasion of one’s “It home:1 is ‘physical entry axiomatic that of the contrary. is not Whren It remains home is the chief evil which the perfectly every clear that not search or sei wording of Fourth is Amendment direct- simply is zure constitutional because it ” Wisconsin, 740, 748, ed.’ 466 Welsh v. U.S. by supported probable cause. As Whren 2097, (1984) 2091, 104 S.Ct. 80 L.Ed.2d 732 acknowledges, itself a search or must seizure (quoting v. United States United Dis- always in light of “all rele be.“reasonable” Court, 297, 313, 2125, trict 407 U.S. 92 S.Ct. “every vant factors”: Fourth Amendment (1972)). 2134-35, 32 L.Ed.2d “The sanc- case, upon since it turns ‘reasonableness’ home, tity person’s perhaps our last real determination, a balancing involves rel of all technological age, retreat this lies at the Whren, at -, evant factors. 116 S.Ct. ” very rights core of the animate the that, 1776. Whren it clear makes in the Becker, amendment.” United States v. cases, majority of probable the existence of (9th Cir.1994) 1537, (quoting Los believe that a traffic law has been Gates, Angeles League Police Protective v. outweigh violated will privacy a citizen’s in (9th Cir.1990)). 879, in avoiding “unsettling” terest and “inconven at -, recognition that a ient” heavily pre- contact. Id. armed 116 S.Ct. at family (quoting Prouse, dawn injures raid of a home funda- Delaware 440 U.S. 648, 657, 1391, 1398, only mental constitutional interests is 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)). beginning ought analysis However, of what to be our when a search or seizure supported by ease. must also probable consider the rela- performed cause is tionship severity particularly between of the offense or intrusive harmful manner search, justify was offered that calls question into the overall reason- occupants (1976) (”[T]he 1. Whereas of a motor vehicle en expecta- L.Ed.2d 1000 joy only expectations privacy" owing "reduced privacy respect tion to one’s automobile pervasive regulation capable "the significantly of vehicles relating less than that to one’s traveling public highways,” office.”); on the Stanley Georgia, home or California 386, 392, Carney, 1249-50, 471 U.S. 105 S.Ct. 22 L.Ed.2d (1985), (1969) enjoy (government’s individuals power otherwise broad privacy regulate freedom and enjoy obscenity "simply their homes does not extend See, e.g., possession nowhere else. South Dakota v. privacy mere the individual in the 364, 367, Opperman, home”). of his own action, nighttime These facts that: courts must include the ableness involved; home factors” to determine raid of a “all relevant balance or seizure satisfies faded to announce themselves before enter- whether the search home;2 requirement ing they occupied reasonableness fundamental hours, eight during the Fourth Amendment. imposed home for over which time Indeed, -, itself Whren family 116 S.Ct. at was forced either re- the Hudson Supreme Court decisions police supervision cites various main on a couch under bal Fourth Amendment which this familiar to seek in the middle other shelter necessary ancing analysis notwithstand night;3 glaring disproportionali- there was a cause. See id. ing the existence ty between intrusiveness raid at -, (citing at 1776-77 sixty sale of dollars’ four-month-old Garner, 1, U.S. 105 v. 471 S.Ct. Tennessee drugs justify worth that was offered to the of (1985); 1694, 1 v. 85 Welsh Wiscon L.Ed.2d raid;4 an of the of the owners and arrest son 2091, sin, 740, L.Ed.2d 104 80 466 U.S. S.Ct. home, premises, the not the of a search of 753, 105 (1984); Lee, v. 470 U.S. 732 Winston justification pre- was the ostensible the (1985); 1611, and Wil 84 L.Ed.2d 662 S.Ct. exclusively focusing the dawn raid. on — Arkansas, -, 115 S.Ct. v. U.S. son cause, probable majority existence of the (1995)). 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 clearly fac- fails to consider these relevant Instead, colleagues rely my upon a compel tors. variety of that a I note factors correctly in it balancing analysis case. discussion Whren that charae- this careful Wilson, requirement” See “simple that of Fourth Amendment. U.S. and ancient 2.The -, 1919; (explaining 5 entering S.Ct. at note before 115 ficers must announce themselves infra home, why distinguished occupants oppor Wilson cannot be from the thereby giving the an case). present tunity cooperate to admit the officers and upon peacefully, based much more than a "is privacy It Foxworth, 873, will be disturbed. is concern that our F.3d 3. Franklin Cf. safety safety upon the 1994) concern for our and (9th based elderly (forcing Cir. ill and man Becker, 23 our families.” F.3d at 1540-41 of an remain semi-nude on couch for hour ren Lockett, 585, (quoting unreasonable). United States v. dered search home J., Cir.1990) (Fernandez, concurring)); also, States, e.g., Miller v. 357 U.S. see importance 4. The of the first and third combined 313, 1190, 1197-98, 301, 78 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d protections special afforded these factors—the (1958); United States Bustamante-Ga (cid:127) by persons in their the Fourth Amendment to mez, (9th Cir.1973). 4, Supreme homes, pro- the and need for some reasonable recently has made it clear that this re Court portionality severity the of the offense between § quirement, at 18 is codified U.S.C. the and and the intrusiveness of resultant search dimensions, the also one constitutional vio is aptly by Supreme seizure—is illustrated must be considered in determin lation which Wisconsin, Court’s decision in Welsh v. 740, constitutionality ing of a search. See Wilson (1984). In 80 L.Ed.2d 732 Arkansas, - U.S. -, -, Welsh, erratically that an driven learned 1914, 1915-16, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 Al car swerved the road and that its driver off dispute majority's though I do conclusion not checking the was either inebriated or sick. After exigency" government's a "mild excused that noncompliance proceeded registration, police without vehicle's re with the knock-and-announce home, they where were ad- warrant to Welsh’s case, entry quirement the unannounced by stepdaughter, Welsh’s and found Welsh mitted implicates interests that the a home nevertheless proba- lying that in bed. The Court held naked designed protect. warrantless, Amendment was Fourth night- justify “a ble could not cause invasions threaten re Unannounced entry petitioner's time into the home security tranquility place and that the sense of him civil offense." Id. at for a traffic enjoy intrusion, our homes with sense of fear. we explained, an it Such protects that protection Fourth Amendment us from "clearly prohibited by special "[Tlhe Becker, protects privacy.” our fear as much as in his the Fourth afforded the individual home Although F.3d at 1540. Even if violation en- the warrantless Amendment." requirement justified by excused try knock-and-announce is Welsh’s home could have been exigency, exigent existence of an both the violation and the circumstances, of both existence any exigency that it must still be find excuses Court refused to that "relatively balancing light weighed part exigency as an of the overall existed in minor” important justify purportedly factor that the search nature of Welsh’s offense: "an interests determining any upon priva to be when whether the intrusion committed considered gravity underlying safety, protected by exigency cy, property exists is the interests Lee, proposition as “dicta” for terizes 1615- (1985), supported by probable and seizures certainly searches does balancing justify rejection subject analysis only balancing analysis to a cause are present extraordinary truly What they “in an “extraordi- if are conducted case.5 nary” in manner,” this case is the notion that present conclude search ordinary conducted here was an one. excep- does not fall within “rare case compels But dictum tion.” the Whren no considered, When all of the facts are it is in a such result. Understood manner consis- plain that search that oc seizure precedent, “extraordinary” tent curred in this ease was “unreasonable.” seizure, in sense in or which the home, deciding parents’ to raid Hudson’s fed Whren, simply used that term one Court upon eral relied an informant’s state ordinary” is “out of the as an ments that Hudson manufactured metham —such family home in armed assault on a the middle phetamine for the Hessians and he had night to arrest in order someone for a seen firearms in the Hudsons’ residence pecurred sixty-dollar drug that had sale over unspecified some past. occasions in the This four months earlier at different location. purchased informant had of an one-sixteenth sup- The notion that searches seizures methamphetamine ounce of from ported by probable cause and in conducted asserted that had he observed trad Hudson ordinary generally ing an manner are constitu- methamphetamine for materials in used see, novel, e.g., hardly tional is methamphetamine. Winston v. the manufacture Yet being directly offense for is controlling which the arrest made.” Id. requires Wilson is and a 750, 753, at 2099. analysis present reasonableness in the case. majority attempts distinguish to Wilson on the Moreover, narrow, majority's the even under ground present that the officers in the case "did approach determining rule-based balancing analysis to whether a knock authority pur and announce their and necessary, the mere fact pose, justified awaiting and were therefore in not that the to officers faffed announce themselves response entering.” a before This distinction entering requires before the Hudson home such completely groundless, both as a matter of fact Arkansas, analysis an in this In Wilson case. First, fact, and as a matter law. as a matter of - U.S. -, entry the manner the two be cases cannot (1995) approval in Whren as an ex — cited cases, distinguished. police In both the were ample involving of a case search conducted in required open to an unlocked screen door "extraordinary an manner” —the Court held that residence, order to reach the main door of the entry private the unannounced home and the they but in required neither case were open to execution therein of search and arrest warrants Wilson, the main door. In the main door was subject balancing analysis. were case, to a In that at -, open, id. 115 S.Ct. at while the police Arkansas obtained warrants to case, present the door main was unlatched and search Wilson’s home and to arrest Wilson. The opened with the force of an officer’s knock. opened officers an screen unlocked door and cases, both the officers knocked and announced open. found the her Only main door to home themselves, they but in neither case did await a entering while identify her home did the officers Second, response entering. before as a matter of themselves and state that had a warrant. law, the fact that the officers “did knock and inside, Once seized officers various narcotics authority purpose” announce their and could not firearm, paraphernalia, narcotics and am justified” have “therefore their failure to await at - - -, munition. Id. 115 S.Ct. at 1915— response: indispensable part it is an obvious and rejected argument 16. The state courts Wilson’s requirement po of the knock-and-announce requires police the Fourth Amendment to See, response lice entering. e.g., await a before prior knock and entering announce themselves to -, (“[A] id. at at - - -, 115 S.Ct. at 1919 or search ahorne. Id. Holding 115 S.Ct. at 1916. dwelling might constitutionally seizure of a comply that failure to with the knock-and-an police defective prior if requirement enter nounce without could render a search or announcement.") added); unconstitutional, (emphasis Supreme seizure in a United home Ramirez, States v. 91 F.3d Court reversed Cir. and remanded for determination 1996) (invalidating police search in whether the was an “unreasonable” in light nounced loudspeaker system themselves over a prior officers' failure announce at -, entry. waiting response, but "without for a 115 S.Ct. at ... broke 1918-19. short, garage began waving the window of the because failed to announce them gun window”); entering through through selves before open Wilson's home an door, Becker, (9th Cir.1994) analysis appro reasonableness priate though (invalidating “loudly Wilson even search and search which an question seizure in pursuant had nounced simultaneously been conducted themselves and kicked entered”) added). to a (emphasis warrant. the door in and notes, totality entry handcuffing unannounced majority as the family, in evidence, provided by the detention of entire Hudson including that home, formant, justified videotaping arrest the contents neither federal occupation any of search warrant: the militaristic of their home nor kind warrant hours, any bring eight that lasted over becomes diffi- refused prosecutors federal imagine police have against on the cult to conduct could charges Hudson basis sale, agent intrusively family’s more at the and the federal struck basic sixty-dollar drug privacy security. un Nor requested right state arrest warrant can who explained magnitude of this intrusion be could not obtain a search he derstood justified ground suggested by on the Hudson home. The small for the warrant charge government might Hudson supported state risk that re- transaction that —the violently. Safety weighed and at four months earlier sist concerns had occurred over Indeed, prose to arrest the state the decision Hudson a different location. obtaining Agent ar ATF responsible Special the state home: as Manna ac- cutor knowledged, “kind of “it have been safer to warrant described as would rest guy5’ the defendant ... outside area that who sold “a small peripheral “ap explained, he is familiar insofar as the of narcotics: as he with.” amount” And government didn’t want were concerned evidence that fire- parently home, kept handle a that small.” arms were in the most dan- case gerous place obviously arrest Hudson Notwithstanding lack of at home. home and the notable to search Hudson’s prosecutors a case of federal indifference months, gov- the course of foür Over Hudson’s, at 3:35 in morn- “small” as as opportunity ample ernment had to arrest team of and ing, a twelve-member home, away away any Hudson from his from bulletproof agents wielding a ballistic state safety, perceived threat in a to officer and home, fights shield and search stormed dramatically less intrusivé manner. parents and searched handcuffed explanation awesomely intru- truthful brother, younger and detained them out- actually approach that was taken —an sive Hud- sweeping the entire house. side while majority that the does not and explanation hands was found in his bedroom with his son course, reject is, agents cannot head; removing his his after him from on to collect evidence other crimes. desired room, performed a search lacking support But that desire aloné— arrest, point incident room agents they warrant that the knew a search glassware that the rifle and discovered render reasonable could obtain —cannot Al- admitted evidence him. were as home, private raid pre-dawn on gave consent though Hudson’s father written family, simply intimidation an entire home, to a search of his entire state warrant on execute a arrest issued the remainder of the house refused search sixty-dollar drug sale took of a account or to leave until a federal warrant was place. months in a place four earlier different day following obtained noon —over blitzkrieg family A home was eight hours the time the raid be- from plainly not a reasonable manner which During eight-hour period, ATF gan. minor I Hudson for a rather crime. arrest videotaped arrived the interior agent dissent. respectfully family on a the house while the remained living in their room. couch heavily family on a home armed raid night in

in the middle of the order to member, family dis- attendant

one solitude, in- family’s peace

ruption deeply

fringes be our what most privacy, safety, property inter-

cherished fact of officers’ When one adds the

ests.

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Don Michael Hudson

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Nov 20, 1996

Citation: 100 F.3d 1409

Docket Number: 95-50359

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.