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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C LAUDIO B U R GOS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50361

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00295-R -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 7, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, WARDLAW , an d TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s . C la udio B urgos (“ B urgos” ) a ppe a ls his c onvic tion, pursua nt to a c onditional guilty ple a , for posse ssion with inte nt to distribute

he roin in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(B )(i). B urgos pre se rve d his right to a ppe a l the de nia l of his 

# FIL ED
D EC 23 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd
we re ve rse . W e re vie w de novo the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a m otion to suppre ss
e vide nc e an d re vie w unde rly i ng fa c tua l findings for c l e ar e rror. U nite d State

s v . Ew i ng , 638 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th C ir. 2011). On M arc h

7, 2012, Los Ange le s C ounty She riff’ s De pa

rtm e nt (“ LASD” ) De puty Jose ph Te lle z (“ T e lle z ” ) pulle d B urgos ove r for a m o ving viola

tion. B urgos told Te lle z tha

t he did not ha

v e a drive r’ s lic e nse . Afte r pla c ing B urgos in his pa trol c ar, Te lle z pe rform e d a lic e nse c he c k

tha t c onfirm e d B urgos did not ha ve
a lic e nse , a n d re v e a le d tha

t B urgos ha d a

n ope n wa

rrant for driving without a lic e nse . Te lle z arre ste d B urgos for the outsta nding wa rrant a nd for driving without
a lic e nse . Pursua nt to C a l. Ve hic le C ode § 14602.6(a), 1 Te lle z se arc he d the ve hic le prior to ha

ving it towe d, whic h is sta nda rd LASD proc e dure . Te lle z found a nd
se iz e d 209 gra

m s of he roin from

the ve hic l e . W arrantle ss se arc he s by

la w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs “ are pe r seunre a sona ble unde r the Fourth Am e ndm e nt— subje c t only to a fe w spe c ific a lly

e s ta blishe d a nd

1 C a lifornia Ve hic le C o de § 14602.6(a) a llows a n offic e r to re m ove and se iz e a ve h ic le onc e it ha s be e n de te rm ine d tha t the drive r of the ve hic le is driving without ha

ving be e n issue d a

drive r’ s lic e nse .

2we ll-de line a t e d e xc e p tions.” K atz v . Unite d

State s , 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) (e m pha sis a dde d ). One e xc e p t ion to theFourth Am e ndm e nt’ s wa rrant re quire m e n t is the “ c om

m unity c are taking” e xc e ption. C ady v . Dombrow

sk i , 413 U.S. 433, 441 (1973). Unde r this e xc e ption, “ polic e offic e rs m a

y im pound ve hic le s tha

t je opa rdiz e public sa fe ty

and the e ffic ie n t m ove m e nt of ve hic ula r tra ffic .” Miranda
v . C ity of C orne lius , 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th C ir. 2005). Onc e a ve hic le is le ga lly im pounde d pursua

nt to a c om m unity c are taking func tion, offic e rs m a y c o nduc t a

n inve ntory se arc h tha

t c onform s to sta

nda rd proc e dure s of loc a l la

w e nforc e m e nt. Se e South Dak

ota v
. Oppe rman , 428 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1976).

“ B e c a use warran tle ss . . . se iz ure s a re pe r se unre a sona

ble , the gove rnm e nt be ars the burde n of showing tha t a wa rrantle ss . . . se iz ure fa lls within a n e x c e ption to the Fourth Am e ndm e nt’ s wa rrant re quire m e nt.” Unite d State s v . C e rv ante s , 703 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th C ir. 2012) (c iting U nite d State

s v . Hawk ins , 249 F.3d 867, 872 (9th C i r. 2001)). He re , the distric t c ourt found tha t the offic e r’ s de c ision to tow the c ar wa s justifie d unde r the c om

m unity c are taking e xc e ption a

n d de nie d B urgos’ s m otion to suppre ss. Afte r re vie wing the re c ord, we c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it de nie d B urgos’ s m otion to suppre ss be c a use the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to c arry its burde n of proof tha

t the c om m unity c are t aking e xc e p tion a

pplie d
. 3Our jurisprude nc e on the c om m unity c a re taking e xc e ption is c le ar: the loc ation of thetra ffic stop m a tte rs. In C e rv ante s , we he ld tha

t the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to de m onstra

te tha t the c om m unity c a re tak ing e xc e ption a

p plie d to the im poundm e nt of the de fe n da n t ’ s c ar be c a

use the gove rnm e n t pre se nte d no
e vide nc e tha

t the ve hic le im

pe de d tra ffic , pose d a

sa fe t y ha z ard, or wa s vulne ra

ble to va nda l ism or the ft. 703 F.3d a

t 1141-42. C

e rv ante s c ontrols be c a

use the gove rnm e nt re l ie d sole ly

upon the c om

m unity c are taking e xc e ption a

nd did not offe r e vide nc e re quire d to justify a pply ing tha

t e x c e ption. 2 Just a s in C

e r v ante s , he re , the gove rnm e n t pre se n te d no e vide nc e tha t B urgos’ s ve hic le wa s “ pa rke d ille g a lly , pose d a

sa fe ty ha z a rd, or wa s vulne ra

ble to va nda lism or the ft.” Id. at 1141. The only e vide nc e the gove rnm e nt offe re d c onc e rning theloc a tion of B urgos’ s ve hic le wa s tha

t Te lle z obse rve d B urgos e xiting the fre e way and

“ trave ling northbound on Ea gle R o c k B oule va

rd, a p proa c hing El Pa so Drive in Los Ange le s,” be fore Te lle z initia te d the tra ffic stop. Theartic ulation of stre e t

2 B e c a use ne ithe r the pa

rtie s nor the distric t c ourt ha d the be n e fit of our de c ision in C

e rv ante s at the tim e of the suppre ssion he aring, on re m and the distric t c ourt m ay re ope n the re c ord so tha

t the C e rv ante s re quire m e nts—

nam e ly whe the r the v e hic l e im

pe de d tra ffic , pose d a

sa fe ty ha z ard, or wa s vulne ra

b le to va n da lism or the ft— m ay be a ddre sse d by

the pa rtie s . The re ope ning of there c ord is only for the p urpose of a ddre ssing thec om m unity c are tak ing e xc e ption. 4nam e s te lls the c o urt ne x t to nothing a bout the stre e t whe re B urgos’ s ve hic l e wa s stoppe d, the c ha

ra c t e ristic s of the stre e t, or whe re e xa c tly B urgos pulle d ove r on the s tre e t. On a ppe a l, the gove rnm e nt a

tta c he d to its brie f Google Stre e t Vie w im a ge s that a lle ge dly de pic t the inte rse c tion of Ea gle R oc k B oule va rd an d El Pa so Drive
. This wa s a

va in a tte m pt by the gove rnm e nt to offe r e vide nc e not pre se n te d to the distric t c o urt to de m onstra te tha t im poundm e nt wa s wa

rrante d by

c om m unity
c are taking c onc e rns. W e re je c t suc h a n atte m p t to supple m e nt the re c ord. Se e Low ry v . Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ Only the c ourt m ay supple m e nt the re c ord.” ) The gove rnm e n t fa ile d to offe r e vide nc e to sa tisfy the c om m unity c a re taking
e xc e ption, a

nd thus fa i le d to e sta

blish tha t the im poundm e n t of B urgos’ s ve h ic le
satisfie d the e xc e ption to the Fourth Am e n dm e nt’ s wa rrant re quire m e nt. B e c a

use the “ gove rnm e nt fa ile d to e sta blish a c om m unity c are taking func tion for the im poundm e nt,” the gove rnm e nt “ fa ile d to e s ta blish thec onstitutiona

l

5re a s ona

ble ne s s of the se i z ure and subse que nt inve ntory se arc h.” Unite d State s v . C ase re s, 533 F.3d 1064, 1075 (9th C ir. 2008). 3 W e be lie ve the a

ppe ara nc e of justic e would be s t be se rve d by re m and to
anothe r judge
. Se e Unite d State s v . Riv e ra , 682 F.3d 1223, 1237 (9th C ir. 2012) (ide ntify ing the pre se rva tion of thea p pe aranc e of justic e a s a

fa c t or re le va

nt to whe the r re a ssignm e nt is a ppropria te ). He re , the distric t c ourt’ s sta t e m e nts a bout the c a se at the suppre ssion he aring ra ise que stions a bout the c ourt’ s im

pa rtia lity on
re m and. M ore ove r, the re c o rd be low c o nsists of a p proxim a te ly

sixty -four pa ge s of te stim ony , de c la

ra tions, e xhibits, le ga l brie fing, a nd ora l a rgum e nt. Thus,
re a s signm e nt on re m and would e nta il m inim a l duplic at ion of e ffort and wa ste , a nd the s e c onc e rns would not outwe igh the “ ga in in pre se rving a ppe ara nc e of fa irne ss.” Id . (ide ntify ing the e nta ilm e nt of wa ste and duplic a tion a s a fa c tor re le v ant to whe the r re a ssignm e nt is a ppropria te ). RE V E RSE D and RE M A NDE D with instruc tions tha t this c a se be
re a s signe d on re m and.

3 B e c a use the gove rnm e n t re l ie d sole ly on im poundm e nt to justify Te lle z ’ s se arc h of the ve hic le , a

nd we find tha

t the gove rnm e nt fa i le d to justify the im poundm e nt, we do not re a c h the issue whe the r Te lle z ’ s se arc h of the ve hic le wa s prope rly within the

pe rm issiblesc ope of a

va lid inve ntory se arc h. 6