N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R OB ER T LEE C R

AW FORD, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-30259

D.C . No. 2:19-c r-00001-DLC -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 26, 2020 * * Portla nd, Ore gon
B e fore : GR

AB E R , C LIFTON, a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt R obe rt Le e C rawford tim e ly a p pe a ls the de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss e vide n c e following his c onditional guilty ple a to posse s sing a

fire arm a s a fe lon in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). R e vie wing the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of 

# FIL ED
NOV 2 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).the m otion to suppre ss de novo a nd its underly ing fa c t

ua l findings for c le ar e rror, Unite d State s v. La

ra , 815 F.3d 605, 608 (9th C i r. 2016), we a ffirm
. 1. De fe nda

nt la c k s sta

nding to c onte st the pa

role offic e rs’ se arc h

of the gun
sa fe be c a use he re pe a te dly

de n ie d owne rship of it. Se e Unite d State s v. De c oud, 456 F.3d 996, 1007–08 (9th C i r. 2006) (holding tha t a de fe nda nt forfe its sta

nding unde r the Fourth Am e ndm e nt, a n issue we re vie w de novo, " by une quivoc a lly disc la im ing owne rship" of the se arc he d prope rty ). 2. De fe nda

nt c annot c h a lle n ge the offic e rs’ re trie va l of a fire arm and a bla c k ba g tha t he disc arde d just be fore his a rre st be c a use he ha d not y e t

be e n se iz e d. Se e Unite d State s v. M c C le ndon, 713 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th C i r. 2013) (holding tha t no
se iz ure oc c urre d whe n

polic e dre w the ir guns a

nd told the

de fe nda nt he wa s unde r
arre st be c a

use the de fe nda

nt did " not displa

y any inte ntion of subm

itting to the offic e rs’ a

uthority " ). De fe nda

nt’ s a rgum e nt tha

t he displa

y e d a n inte nt to subm

it to the o ffic e rs is be lie d by

the re c ord. Eve n if offic e rs ha d se iz e d De fe n d ant, the y ha d the " re a sona

ble grounds" re quire d by

M onta na la w to a rre st him be c a use
a uthoritie s just ha d found fire arm s, a long with docum e n ts be aring De fe nda nt’ s
nam e , in the sa fe . Se e State v. Plouffe , 646 P.2d 533, 537 (M ont. 1982) (holding that the arre st of a

pa role e is la wful whe n the re are " re a sona ble grounds to be lie ve that the de fe n da

nt ha d c om

m itte d a c ts tha

t c onstitute d a

viola tion of pa role 2c onditions" ). Sim ila rly , the offic e rs ha d the a

uthority to se arc h the ba g be c a

use the y ha d re a sona

ble suspic ion tha

t he ha d viola

te d pa role c onditions. 3. To the e xte nt tha

t pa role offic e rs viola

t e d M o nta

na sta tutory la w through the i r de la y in filing post-a

rre st pa pe rwork, or othe rwise , tha t viola tion would not
warran t suppre ssion be c a use the c onte ste d e vide n c e would not ha ve " b e e n c om e at by e xploita tion of tha

t ille ga lity ." W ong Sun v. Unite d State s, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963). 4. De fe nda

nt forfe i te d his a

rgum e nt tha

t pa role offic e rs viola

te d his due proc e s s rights be c a

use he did not ra ise it be fore the distric t c o urt a nd c a nn ot show good c a use for the de l ay . Se e Unite d Stat e s v. Gue rre ro, 921 F.3d 895, 898 (9th C ir. 2019) (pe r c uriam ) (holding tha t a de fe n da n t m u st show good c a

u se whe n he

" a tte m pts to ra ise ne w the orie s on a ppe a l in support of a

m otion to suppre ss" ), c e rt. de nie d, 140 S. C t. 1300 (2020). AFFIRM E D.

3