Case ID: f-appx_104/html/0674-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hai Ming MU, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Heng Zhao, Defendant—Appellant.
    Nos. 03-10375, 03-10396.
    D.C. No. CR-02-00977-1-PAC, CR-02-00977-JAT.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 11, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 16, 2004.
    Steven Paul Logan, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Gilbert Eisenberg, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before PREGERSON, KOZINSKI and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The district court erred in denying defendants’ motion to suppress the evidence seized as the product of their unlawful continued detention. See United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 268 F.3d 719, 724r-25 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 279 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.2002). Additionally, both defendants had standing to challenge the admission of the evidence as incident to the continued detention. See United States v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000).

REVERSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.