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 ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ANTHONY DELB ER T JONES, Jr.,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-10322

D.C . No. 4:18-c r-00032-JAS-EJM -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 Ariz o na Jam e s Ala

n Soto, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2021 Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : W . FLETC HER , M ILLER , a nd HUNSAKER , C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Anthony

De lbe rt Jone s, Jr., e nte re d a c onditional ple a

of guilty to posse s sing a

fire a rm and a m m unition in viola

t ion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g)(1) a nd 924(a )(2). He re se rve d the right to a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his motion to suppre ss. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED

FEB 24 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.Any

c ross-c e rtific ation e rror is e xc use d unde r the good-fa i th e x c e ption to the
e xc lusiona

ry rule . “ Whe n e vide nc e is obtaine d in viola tion of the Fourth Am e ndm e nt, thejudic ia lly de ve lope d

e xc lusiona

ry rule usua lly pre c l ude s its usein
a c rim i na l proc e e ding a ga i nst thevic tim of the ille ga l se arc h a

nd se i zure .” Illinois
v . K rull , 480 U.S. 340, 347 (1987). Howe ve r, whe n polic e “ a c t with a n obje c tive ly

‘ re a sona ble good-fa ith be l ie f’ tha

t the ir c onduc t

is la w ful,” the e xc lusiona

ry rule doe s not a pply be c a use the unde rly ing de te rre nc e rationa le fa ils a nd e xc lusion is not justifie d. Dav is v . Unite d State s , 564 U.S. 229, 238 (2011) (c ita tion omitte d) (c olle c ting c a se s). He re , ba se d on She riff Na pie r’ s le tte r, Age nt B ulloc k
re a s ona bly be lie v e d he wa s c ross-c e rtifie d unde r Ariz ona la w a nd tha t he ha d the powe r to m ak e the tra ffic stop. Thegood-fa ith e xc e ption to the e xc lusiona

ry rule thus a pplie s, a nd the re is no ba sis to e xc l ude the e vide nc e . Eve n if we we re to a ssum e the stop viola te d the Appropria

tions C l a use and the Purpose Ac t, suppre s sion would not be an a ppropria te re m e dy in this c a s e . Se e Hudson v . Mic higan , 547 U.S. 586, 591 (2006) (“ Suppre ssion of e vide nc e . . . ha s a lwa y s be e n our la st re sort, not our first im p ulse .” ); se ealso Sanc he

z-Llamas v
. Ore gon , 548 U.S. 331, 347 (2006) (“ [T] he e xc lusiona ry rule is not a

re m e dy we a pply lightly .” ); Unite d State

s v . Dre y e r , 804 F.3d 1266, 1278 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba nc ) (“ [W ] e re c ogniz e t

hat a ll thre e c a se s re fle c t the Supre m e C ourt’ s re c e nt

2dire c tion tha t the [e xc lusiona

ry ] rule is a

re m e dy of la st re sort . . . .” ). The re is no

“ e x c e ptiona l re a son” justify ing e xc lusion. Se eUnite d State s v . Harrington , 681 F.2d 612, 615 (9th C ir. 1982). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt should not ha ve sum m arily a dopte d the m a gistra

te judge ’ s re port a

nd re c om m e ndation without a

ddre ssing a ll of De fe n da

nt’ s obje c tions, na

m e ly tha t the m a gistra

te judgefa ile d to a ddre ss his c onstitutiona l
c ha lle nge s to c ross-c e rtific at ion. Se eBrown v . Roe , 279 F.3d 742, 745 (9th C ir. 2002). W he n a pa rty obje c t s to thepropose d findings a nd re c om m e ndations, the distric t c o urt judgem

ust “ m ak e a

de novo de te rm ination of those portions of the
re port or spe c ifie d propose d findings a nd re c o m m e ndations to which obje c tion is
m a de .” 28 U.S.C . § 636(b)(1). Howe ve r, in thec a s e be fore us, a d dre ssing the obje c tions would not ha

v e re sulte d in a

diffe re nt outc om e . AFFIRM E D.

3