1.     US v. Landeros, No. 17-10217 (1-11-19)(Berzon w/Rawlinson & Watford). 

The 9^th reverses denial of a suppression motion.  The 9^th holds that a police officer cannot extend a lawfully initiated car stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a criminal offense. The 9^th recognizes that Rodriguez, 135 S. Ct 1609 (2015) abrogates previous 9^th Circuit, US v. Turvin, 517 F.3d 1097 (9^th Cir. 2008). Turvin allowed a reasonable “brief pause” while Rodriguez rejected such a reasonableness pause approach. Rodriguez requires a traffic stop can only be extended to conduct an investigation into matters other than the original traffic violation only if the officers have reasonable suspicion of an independent offense.  The stop here was for a traffic citation.  It ended.  Then the police asked for the passenger’s identity.  The passenger’s refusal to give his identity is not reasonable.  State law (Az) did not require the giving of identity absent reasonable suspicion. Thus, the bullets found and the smoking pipe had to be suppressed.

Congrats to Lee Tucker AFPD with FPD Az (Tucson).

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/11/17-10217.pdf

 

2.     US v. Hall, No. 17-10422 (1-11-19)(per curiam w/Gould, Berzon, & Block).

 

The defendant and his son were both convicted of fraudulent criminal conduct. A special condition of SR was that the defendant (father) was only “permitted to have contact with [his son] only for normal familial relations but is prohibited from any contact, discussion, or communication concerning financial or investment matters except matters limited to defendant’s own support.” Defendant objected. Fathers and sons need to talk.  The 9^th sustained the objection, and reverses this condition. The 9^th finds limiting contact to “normal familial relations” is unconstitutionally vague; “what is a normal family?” asks the 9^th.* [*Cf.”All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina.] The concern with engaging in further fraud or illegal activities is covered with the condition forbidding illegal activities and other conditions regarding financial dealings.

Congrats to Elisse Larouche and Dan Kaplan, AFPDs with FPD Az (Phoenix).

The decision is here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/01/11/17-10422.pdf

This was a good week for the Az FPD in the 9^th Cir.  We won US v. Lopez yesterday, and the two above today, and also got a remand on another SR condition in an unpublished opinion in US v. Harmon, No. 18-10087 (1-10-19).  This was another Dan Kaplan win.