Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0781-01.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. Maria FERRO, Claimant-Appellant, Robert Ferro, Claimant, and 1,679 Firearms; 87,983 Rounds of Ammunition; 3 Airburst Projectiles; Assorted Fuses, Defendants.
    No. 10-56808.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 17, 2012.
    Filed June 11, 2012.
    Steven Reuben Welk, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Lisa Jane Jackson, Esquire, Law Offices of Lisa J. Jackson, Pacific Palisades, CA, Christopher Dain Johnson, Esquire, Johnson & Pham LLP, Woodland Hills, CA, Roger Sandberg Hanson, Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Claimant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, HAWKINS, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

In this memorandum disposition, we address Maria Ferro’s contention that the search that revealed the firearms at issue was unconstitutional. We affirm the district court’s denial of her motion to suppress. In a concurrently filed published opinion, we address her other claims.

Ferro moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the warrant affidavit contained deliberately false statements which rendered it invalid under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). On appeal, Ferro contends that five specific statements in the Radovic affidavit were false and that, without these statements, the police lacked probable cause for a search. Her argument fails for a simple reason: even excluding all of the statements to which she objects, the affidavit still contained more than enough probable cause to obtain a warrant. It is clear to us that, as the district court said, “any judge would issue a search warrant in this case to go into Robert Ferro’s house and see if the same guy who is setting up a hideaway place for [Frank] Beltran is also holding the gun and the clothes that he used during the crime.”

The denial of the motion to suppress is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . In his criminal proceeding for being an felon-in-possession, Robert Ferro also moved to suppress the same evidence, and the motion was denied by a different judge than the one presiding in this case.