Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-mj-00058/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-mj-00058-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacob A. Azevedo
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. CR. S-10-MJ-0058 DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 

JACOB A. AZEVEDO,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

On May 18, 2010, the court held an evidentiary hearing on

the motion to suppress evidence filed in the above-entitled action on

behalf of defendant Jacob Azevedo. Bob Sweeten, Certified Law

Student, appeared on behalf of the United States, Jared Stephenson,

Certified Law Student, of the Federal Defender’s Office appeared on

behalf of the defendant. 

Following the evidentiary hearing, the court requested

supplemental briefing with respect to the government’s argument that

the defendant had given implied consent to the search of his

Case 2:10-mj-00058-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 To the extent any material facts are disputed by the parties, 1

this statement of facts represents the court’s factual findings based

upon the evidence received at the evidentiary hearing.

 Apparently referred to by hunters as a “shell check.” 2

2

belongings by entering onto a National Wildlife Refuge to hunt. On

June 22, 2010, the court heard further oral argument with respect to

the motion. For the reasons set forth below, defendant Azevedo’s

motion to suppress evidence will be granted. 

FACTS1

Defendant Jacob Azevedo is charged in this misdemeanor

action with possession of marijuana on a national wildlife refuge in

violation of 50 C.F.R. § 27.82(b). The charge stems from the November

22, 2009, search of the defendant’s belongings by Refuge Officer

Gregory Burgess at the Colusa Wildlife Refuge. The facts surrounding

the incident are as follows. 

On the day in question Officer Burgess and California Game

Warden Nate Stebbins were carrying out “hunter compliance checks ”

2

from 4:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to ensure that hunters entering the field

at the Colusa Wildlife Refuge were in compliance with the law. Just

before 6:00 a.m. defendant Azevedo and his hunting companion, Nigel

Smith, were on their way to the pond where they were assigned to hunt

that day when they encountered Game Warden Stebbins. Stebbins advised

the two that they were on a county road which was not the proper route

by which to access the field. Shortly thereafter Refuge Officer

Burgess joined and requested Azevedo’s hunting license. Azevedo

complied. Officer Burgess kept the license and stated that the

Case 2:10-mj-00058-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Based upon the credible testimony of Azevedo and Smith, the 3

court finds that Officer Burgess did not ask Azevedo for consent to

search nor did Azevedo provided consent to any search. Rather,

Burgess simply announced that he was conducting hunter compliance

checks and proceeded to search. Although Officer Burgess and Game

Warden Stebbins generally described their encounter with defendant

Azevedo, and with other hunters that day, as “consensual,” taken as a

whole, their testimony was not inconsistent with the court’s finding

in this regard. Officer Burgess estimated that they performed as many

as thirty to fifty compliance checks that day. Game Warden Stebbins

testified that the two officers, as part of their hunter compliance

checks, were looking for violations relating to hunting licenses,

firearms, ammunition (including the correct number of shells), alcohol

and controlled substances. The court fully credits the officers’

testimony in this latter regard. 

 Azevedo was found to have twenty-six shells, instead of the 4

maximum allowed number of twenty-five. 

3

officers were conducting hunter compliance checks and would need to

pat down Azevedo. Azevedo responded by putting his backpack and 3

several items from his pockets, including a hard-pack of cigarettes,

on the ground in front of him. After patting down Azevedo, Burgess

then opened the cigarette pack and discovered a half-burned marijuana

cigarette about which he questioned Azevedo. Burgess then searched

Azevedo’s backpack and discovered an extra shell. Burgess warned 4

Azevedo about possessing more shells then legally allowed, cited him

for the violation of 50 C.F.R. § 27.82(b)(2), returned his hunting

license and ejected Azevedo and Smith from the refuge. 

The defendant moves to suppress all evidence seized,

including any statements made, on the grounds that the warrantless

search of his belongings was an unreasonable, non-consensual search. 

In opposing the motion to suppress, the government 

initially took the positions that Azevedo had consented to each aspect

of the search, including that of the pack of cigarettes. In

Case 2:10-mj-00058-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

supplemental briefing, submitted after the court indicated that it

would find a lack of affirmative consent on the part of the defendant,

the government argues that defendant Azevedo’s consent to the search

should be implied from: (1) his failure to object to Officer Burgess’s

actions; or (2) from his entry on to the National Wildlife Refuge to

engage in the heavily regulated activity of hunting. 

ANALYSIS

For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that

the government has not established implied consent justifying the

warrantless search under the facts of this case.

Of course, it is the prosecution that bears the burden of

justifying a warrantless search. United States v. Davis, 332 F.3d

1163, 1168, n.3 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Johnson, 936 F.2d

1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, “[t]he existence of consent to

search is not lightly to be inferred, and is a question of fact to be

determined from the totality of the circumstances.” United States v.

Patacchia, 602 F.2d 218, 219 (9th Cir. 1979) (quoting Schneckloth v.

Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-49 (1973)). 

At the outset, the court rejects the governments argument

that Azevedo’s failure to object to the pat-down and search of his

belongings somehow inferred his consent to the search. Under the

Fourth Amendment, “the government may not show consent . . . from a

defendant’s failure to object[.]” Lopez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012,

1017 (9th Cir. 2008)(quoting United States v. Shaibu, 920 F.2d 1423,

1427 (9th Cir. 1990)); United States v. Albrektsen, 151 F.3d 951, 955

(9th Cir. 1998) (evidence that a suspect moved aside to avoid contact

Case 2:10-mj-00058-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/22/10 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

with entering officers insufficient to establish implied consent); see

also Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 548-49 (1968) (voluntary

consent requires more than the mere acquiescence to lawful authority). 

Here, the testimony establishes that Azevedo did no more than to

acquiescence to a display of authority by a law enforcement officer. 

He did not consent to the search of his belongings either

affirmatively nor by his actions in response to the direction of

Officer Burgess. 

Resolution of this motion therefore turns on whether by his

entry onto the National Wildlife Refuge to hunt, Azevedo thereby gave

his implied consent to a search for purposes of enforcing all

applicable laws and regulations. The government argues that hunting

in general is a heavily regulated activity and that all hunters are

aware of compliance checks. The government also argues that various

provisions of Title 50 C.F.R., state law, brochures, training

booklets, and the “Harvest Record” permit issued to those hunting at

the Colusa National Wildlife Refuge advise hunters of what they may

and may not do (including that they ay not possess controlled

substances) and that they may be subject to ejection if they violate

those provisions. Thus, the government concludes, just like an

airline passenger who elects to fly thereby subject himself to search

upon entering the security checkpoint outside the gate area, defendant

AZEVEDO had two options: enter the refuge and subject himself to

possible search or not hunt. The government’s argument misses the

mark and is unpersuasive.

/////

Case 2:10-mj-00058-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/22/10 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Not merely put on notice of what conduct is permitted. 5

 Indeed, although the giving of notice to an individual of a 6

potential for search followed by voluntary conduct by that individual

subjecting one to search are relevant factors, courts confronting

claims of implied consent in contexts distinguishable from this one

have been reluctant to uphold warrantless searches based simply on

actions taken in the light of posted notice. See Ferguson v. City of

6

Cases such as those relied upon by the government all

involve instances where individuals are warned or put on notice in

some way that if they elect to proceed, they will be subject to

search. See United States v. Aukai, 440 F.3d 1168, 1180 (9th Cir. 5

2006)(implied consent to secondary search by walking through

magnetometer at airport security checkpoint in part because “[t]here

is no doubt that Aukai was on notice that his person could be

searched”); Morgan v. United States, 323 F.3d 776, 778 (9th Cir.

2003)(noting that military bases warn of the possibility of search as

a condition of entry which may result in implied consent to search by

those seeking entry and remanding for a determination of whether

implied consent was present); United States v. Miner, 484 F.2d 1075,

1076 (9th Cir. 1973)(implied consent to search by one boarding a plane

who admitted he had seen signs warning that all passengers and their

baggage were subject to search and that he knew what the signs meant);

see also United States v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863, 866 (5th Cir. 1977)

(consent to search found because defendant’s entry onto the military

base was specifically conditioned upon his consent to search according

to the terms of the visitor’s pass he was issued and which he

admittedly reviewed and displayed on his windshield.) Without

implied consent, the warrantless search in this case was unlawful.6

Case 2:10-mj-00058-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/22/10 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Charleston, S.C., 308 F.3d 380, 399 (4th Cir. 2002); McGann v.

Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter, 8 F.3d 1174, 1179-80 (7th Cir.

1993); United States v. Graham, 117 F. Supp. 2d 1015, 1020 (W.D. Wash.

2000) (ferry terminal search).

 This is not to suggest that it would be inappropriate to seek 7

implied consent to search in connection with obtaining a permit to

hunt on the Colusa National Wildlife Refuge. The government obviously

has a very legitimate interest in ensuring public safety on such

property that would be advanced by taking every reasonable precaution

to make sure all laws and regulations, including those related to

possession of alcohol and controlled substances, are being complied

with by those engaged in the potentially dangerous activity of

hunting. 

7

See United States v. Carson, 793 F. 2d 1141, 1145, 1155-58 (10th Cir.

1986) (warrantless search of a hunter’s hunting pail covered by a vest

was in violation of the Fourth Amendment but subsequent consent to

search by the defendant found to purge the evidence of that primary

illegality); United States v. Hunnicutt, No.1:05-MJ-00241, 2006 WL

91765, at * W.D. N.C. Jan 13, 2006) (motion to suppress granted where

evidence of possession of a controlled substance was seized at a State

Wildlife Commission hunting license and game violation checkpoint that

was operated without a written plan, without warning signs or any

indicia indicating the purpose of the stop to motorist). 

 Here, the government is forced to concede that there are no

statutes, no regulations, no signs, and no literature of any kind

putting those who enter the Colusa National Wildlife Refuge to hunt on

notice of a potential for search if they elect to enter. The 7

“Harvest Record” permit issued to hunters for that refuge likewise

contains no such notice or warning. The government has simply offered

no evidence in support of its claim in this case that Azevedo gave his

implied consent to search by entering the refuge to hunt. Therefore,

Case 2:10-mj-00058-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/22/10 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 The court will waive the defendant’s appearance at the status 8

conference if a signed waiver is on file prior thereto. 

8

all evidence seized as a result of the search of Azevedo and his

belongings, including his alleged statements when confronted with the

seized marijuana cigarette, must be suppressed.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above:

1. Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence (Doc. No. 4) is

GRANTED in its entirety; and

2. The matter is set for Status Conference on August 3,

2010, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 27.8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 21, 2010.

Ddad1/orders.criminal/azevedo0058oahsuppress

Case 2:10-mj-00058-DAD Document 17 Filed 07/22/10 Page 8 of 8