Case ID: f-appx_695/html/0339-01.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. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50328
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted August 7, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed August 16, 2017
    L. Ashley Aull, Michael Anthony Brown, Kimberly Denise Jaimez, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    
      Georgina Wakefield, Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDGA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

The officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the driver of the car in which Rodriguez was riding of breaking the law, and they therefore had a “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to lawfully stop the vehicle. See Cal. Vehicle Code §§ 5200, 4456(c), 11715; see also Helen v. N. Carolina, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 530, 536, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014). The officers lawfully asked Rodriguez to step out of the car for the duration of the stop. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110-111 & n.6, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). Rodriguez dropped drugs as he exited. When the officers found the drugs, they had probable cause to arrest him, and the subsequent search of the car in which he had been a passenger was lawful. See United States v. Pinela-Hernandez, 262 F.3d 974, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court properly denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the car and the statements he made after his arrest. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.