1.  US v. Williams, No. 15-10475 (12-5-16)(Hurwitz w/Rawlinson; dissent by Kleinfeld).  The 9th affirmed suppression of a statement given after Miranda rights were invoked.  The defendant was arrested for murder and invoked.  Hours later, during booking, he was asked if he was a "member of a gang."  The prosecution wants to use this statement to show that the defendant belonged to a criminal enterprise for the RICO offense.  The 9th found that the "booking exception" (for biographical questions) is subject to the qualification that if the officer knows that the routine questions may incriminate the defendant, than the queries amount to interrogation.  So it is here.  The questions exposed the defendant to greater risk due to federal prosecution and to state murder charges.  The knowledge for the booking exception is objective; here, the officer should have known.  The public safety exception also does not apply under these circumstances.  Kleinfeld, dissenting, argues that both exceptions apply.

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/12/05/15-10475.pdf

2.  US v. Mohamud, No. 14-30217 (12-5-16)(Owens w/Pregerson and Bea). The 9th affirmed defendant's conviction for attempting to detonate an explosive during a holiday celebration in downtown Portland.  The 9th rejected the defendant's argument that there was entrapment as a matter of law and there was not outrageous government misconduct, despite the government's aggressive conduct.  The 9th also held that the defendant's 4th amendment rights were not violated in the incidental collection of emails through the targeting of foreign nationals.  The search was reasonable under the 4th.  There were FISL protections.  After all, the government had a compelling interest in national security.

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/12/05/14-30217.pdf