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. FR ANC ISC O SALAZAR , Jr., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50388

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-04584-DM S-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Nove m

be r 19, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , PR EGER SON, a nd NGUYEN, C irc u it Judge s. Fra nc isc o Sa la z ar, Jr. a

ppe a ls the de c ision of thedistric t c ourt tha t de nie d his
m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e obta ine d by a wa rra ntle s s downloa d of e le c tronic data from his c e llula

r phone inc ide nt to his a

rre st, a nd from a c anine inspe c tion of his 

# F IL ED
JAN 16 2015 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.a

utom obile on Se p te m

b e r 19, 2012. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 & 1294(1). W e find for the a p pe lla nt a nd re ve rse the orde r of the distric t c o urt. The distric t c ourt de nie d Sa la z ar’ s m otion to suppre ss without the be n e fit of Rile y v . C alifornia , 134 S. C t. 2473 (2014), in whic h the Supre m e C o urt he l d tha t the s e arc h of a c e l lula

r phone inc ide nt to a

rre st, a bse nt e xige nc y , re quire s a proba b le c a use warra n t. The e vide ntia ry re c ord m a

y be spa rse and unc le ar a s to how the wa

rra ntle ss c e llula

r phone se arc h a ffe c te d

Sa la z a r’ s guilty ple a , but the la w a s to this issue

is substa ntia l a nd c le ar. Se e Rile

y , 134 S. C t. at 2493; s e e also Unite d State s v . C amou , No. 12-50598, 2014 W L 6980135 (9th C ir. De c . 11, 2014). The distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to suppre ss the e vide nc e obta ine d from the unla wful se arc h

m ust be re ve rse d. The distric t c ourt a l so la c ke d the be ne fit of U nite d State

s v . Thomas , 726 F.3d 1086, 1096-97 (9th C ir. 2013), c e rt. de nie d , 134 S. C t . 2154 (2014), whe re this c ourt c onc lude d tha

t re d a c t e d c anine tra i ning re c ords we re ina de quate to de m onstra

te a c anine ’ s re lia

bility for a proba ble c a use finding to justify a subse q ue nt se arc h. The issue re ga

rding the c anine re lia

bility de te rm ination in this c a s e is not whe the r a m athe m a t ic a l re vie w of num e ric a l sc ore s on submitte d form s de m onstra

te tha t the dog in this c a se , C h arle y , is a good dog, or tha

t B e ny -A, the 2dog in Thomas , m ay have be e n a

ba d dog, a s the disse nt’ s ana ly sis indic a te s. The issue is whe t

he r the gove rnm e nt fulfille d its dutie s to provideSa la z ar with a fa ir he aring be fore the distric t c ourt. Se eFlorida v . Harris , 133 S. C t. 1050, 1055- 1058 (2013). The gove rnm e n t ha s long be e n on notic e tha t a de fe n da nt in a c a se suc h a s this one is e ntitle d to c anine tra ining re c ords a nd tha t the ir disc losure is m andatory . Unite d State s v . C e dano-Are llano , 332 F.3d 568, 573 (9th C ir. 2003); se e also Unite d State s v . C orte z–Roc ha, 394 F.3d 1115, 1118 n. 1 (9th C ir. 2005). The se ty pe s of re c ords a

re “ c ruc ia l to [a

de fe n da nt’ s] a bility to a s se ss the dog’ s re lia

bility , a ve ry im porta nt issuein his de fe nse , and to c onduc t an e ffe c tiv e c rosse x amination of the

dog’s handle r .” C

e dano-Are llano , 332 F.3d a t 571 (e m pha sis
a dde d). The gove rnm e n t subm itte d the unre da c te d c a nine tra ining re c ords to this pa ne l on a ppe a l. Unde r C

e d ano-Are llano this is insuffic ie nt to c ure the e rror. Id
. a t 573. It is a

t the distric t c ourt, whe re the fa c t s a re de te rm ine d, te stim o ny

is subje c t to se a

rc hing c ross-e xam ination, a nd the e vide ntia

ry re c ord is c om

pile d, tha t
unre da c t e d c anine re c ords m ust, a t a m inim um , be pre se nte d to the judge in c am e ra for re vie w a

nd c onside re d in light of the spe c ific fa c ts a

t issue in the tria l. Id
.

3W e would deprive the distric t c ourt of its proper func tion we re we to a llow the g ove rnm e nt to suc c e s sfully c irc um ve nt the usua l rule s of c rim ina l proc e dure , Fe d. R . C rim . P. 16, a

nd the re quire m e n ts of Ninth C i rc uit pre c e de nt, Thomas , 726 F.3d at 1096-97, by

introduc ing m a

n datory unre da c te d tra ining re c o rds only whe n
a c a s e is on a

ppe a l. “ [A] proba

ble -c a use he aring foc u sing on a dog’ s a le rt should proc e e d m

u c h like any

othe r. Thec ourt

should a llow the pa

rtie s to m a

k e the ir be st
c a se , c onsiste nt with the

usua l rule s of c rim ina l proc e dure . And the c ourt should the n e va luate the proffe re d e vide nc e to de c ide what a ll the c irc um sta nc e s de m onstra

te . If . . . the de fe nda

nt ha s c ha lle nge d the Stat e ’ s c a se (by disputing the
re lia bility of the dog ove ra ll or of a pa rtic ula r a l e rt), the n thec ourt

should we igh the c om pe ting e vide nc e .” Harris , 133 S. C t. at 1058 (e m pha sis a dde d).

“ The que stion . . . is whethe r a ll the fa c ts surrounding a dog’ s a l e rt, vie we d through thele ns of c o m

m on se nse , would m ake a re a sona bly prude nt pe rson think that a se arc h would re v e a l c ontra ba nd or e v ide nc e of a

c rim e .” Id . The le ns of
c om m on se nse use d

in a nswe ring this que stion should only on ra re oc c a s ion be da rke n e d by the gove rnm e nt’ s re da c t ing pe n. In this c a se , the de fe nda

n t c ha l le nge d the c anine ’ s re lia bility and points to spe c ific insta

nc e s whe re the unre da c te d c anine tra ining re c ords, a long with
e ffe c tive c ross-e xam i nation, m ay have “ c ha

nge d the ultim at e de te rm ination tha t 4the a ge nts ha d [proba ble c a use ] to support the ir se arc h[.] ” C e dano-Are llano , 332 F.3d at 574. W e the re fore re ve rse and re m and to the distric t c ourt for furthe r proc e e dings in light of inte

rve n i ng c a se l aw. Pe r the C onditiona l Ple a Agre e m e n t be twe e n Sa la z ar and the gove rnm e nt file d M ay 21, 2013, a

nd Fe d
. R . C rim . P. 11(a )(2), Sa l a z ar is pe rm i tte d to withdra w his ple a of guilty to 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a )(1) and 846. Se e Unite d State s v . Me jia , 69 F.3d 309 (9th C ir. 1995). RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

5Unite d

State s v . Salazar , No. 13-50388 NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge , disse nting: I re spe c tfully

disse nt. In m

y vie w, re ve rsa l is unwa

rra nte d be c a

u se any e rror wa s ha rm le ss. A. C ha rle y ’ s Tra i ning R e c ords Eve n if the unre da c t e d tra ining re c ords for C ha rle y (the dog) ha d be e n
ava ila ble , the y would not ha

ve c ha n ge d the distric t

c o urt’ s finding tha

t C ha rle y wa s re lia b le . In Unite d State

s v . C e dano-Are l lano , a dog sniff c a se with simila r fa c t s, we found tha

t “ while de fe nse c ounse l should ha ve be e n give n a c c e ss to the
re que s te d doc um e nts, the re wa s nothing in those doc um e nts tha

t would ha

ve c ha nge d the ultim a te de te rm ination tha t the a ge nts” ha d re a sona

ble suspic ion to
se arc h the ve h ic l e . 332 F.3d 568, 574 (9th C ir. 2003). Thesa m e c onc lusion
a pplie s with e qua l forc e he re . The gove rnm e n t produc e d re c ords tha t re ve a le d C ha

rle y ’ s sc ore s, whic h
we re ne arly

a ll pa ssing m arks. It re da c te d the c om m e nts on C ha

rle y ’ s pe rform anc e
and how the tra ining wa s c onduc te d. On a ppe a l, we have the be ne fit of the
unre da c t e d re c ords a

n d c an re a dily

se e tha t the re da c te d c om

m e nts a re ove rwhe lm ingly

positive . If anything, there d a c t e d c om m e nts stre n gthe n the 

# F IL ED
JAN 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSdistric t c o urt’ s finding tha t C ha rle y wa s re lia ble
. 1 The fa c ts he re c ontra st sha rply with those

in Unite d State

s v . Thomas , whe re we re ve rse d a

de nia l of a

m o tion to suppre s s be c a

use of the distric t c ourt’ s re lia nc e on re da c t e d tra ining re c ords. 726 F.3d 1086 (9th C i r. 2013). In Thomas , we did not ha ve the unre da c te d re c o rds, a n d thus we “ [c ould not] sa y tha t the re is ‘ n othing in those doc um e nts tha

t would ha

ve c ha nge d the ultim a te de te rm ination tha t the
a ge nts ha d [proba

ble c a use ] to support the ir se arc h.’ ” Id. a t 1097 (first a lte ra tion
a dde d, se c ond a lte ra t ion in origina l) (quoting C

e dano-Are llano , 332 F.3d a t 574). M ore ove r, B e ny -A, the dog in Thomas , is no C ha rle y . Am ong othe r diffe re nc e s, B e ny -A and his ha ndle r re c e ive d fa iling sc ore s on e v e ry single pe rform a nc e re c ord in va

rious c a te gorie s, a

nd re c e i ve d fa iling sc ore s a round 6 pe rc e nt of the tim e . Se e Exc e rpts of R e c ord of Appe lla nt a t 216-31, Unite d State

s
v . Thomas , 726 F.3d 1086 (9th C ir. 2013) (No. 11-10451), EC F No. 42. The

1 The m a jority sta te s tha t the re le va

nt que stion is not Cha

rle y ’ s re lia

bility , but the gove rnm e n t’ s re sponsibility to provideSa la z ar with a fa ir he aring. B ut to the e xte nt tha

t this is a disc ove ry

issue , it be ars m e ntion tha t de fe n se c ounse l did not obje c t be low to there da c t ions. As wee xpla ine d in Unite d State

s v . He nde rson , whe n the gove rnm e nt withholds disc ove ry inform a tion ba se d on a c l a im of privile ge , “ a

distric t c ourt m

ust hold a n in c am e ra he aring whe ne ve r the de fe nda nt m ake s a m inim a l thre shold showing tha t disc losure would be re le va nt.” 241 F.3d 638, 645 (9th C ir. 2000) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Spire s , 3 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th C ir. 1993)) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). B y fa iling to obje c t or re que st a n in c am e ra re vie w, Sa la z ar fa ile d to m ake suc h a showing. M ore ove r, Sa la z ar’ s fa ilure to obje c t a

rgua bly lim its us to pla

in e rror re vie w, a s the gove rnm e nt a rgue s. In a

ny e ve nt, e ve n unde r harm le ss e rror re vie w, Sa l a z ar’ s c la im fa ils.gove rnm e nt in Thomas a lso c onc e de d that the re da c te d c om

m e nts like ly

would inc l ude “ c ritique s of the te am ’ s c om pe te n c e a s we ll a s disc ussions a bout a re a s for im prove m e nt.” Thomas , 726 F.3d a t 1097. C h arle y , on the othe r han d, re c e ive d fa iling sc ore s le s s tha

n one -ha lf of one pe rc e nt of the tim e , a nd the re da c te d
c om m e n ts on his re c o rds a

re ove rwhe lm ingly

positive . The re d a c te d c om m e nts he re
— ne arly a l l a long the line s of “ G re at job! Te a m works ve ry

we ll toge the r” an d

“ C anine ha s a g re a t nose and strong a le rt”

— ge ne ra lly pra ise C ha

rle y ’ s pe rform a nc e . The re da c tions do not unde rm ine the proba

ble c a use ana l y s is, a

nd
any e rror in re d a c t ing the re c o rds is the re fore ha rm le ss. Se e Florida v
. Harris , 133 S. C t. 1050, 1057 (2013) (obse rving tha t “ e vide nc e of a

dog’ s satisfa c tory pe rform a nc e in a c e rtific a tion or tra ining progra m c an itse lf provide suffic ie nt
re a s on to trust his a

le rt” ). B . The C e ll Phone R e c ords Any e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to suppre ss the c e ll phone re c ords
wa s ha rm le ss. Sa la z ar ple a de d guilty to be i ng a

m e m be r of a drug c onspira c y , a c ha rge tha t wa s a m ply supporte d by

othe r e vide nc e . To find guilt of c onspira c y , the g ove rnm e nt ne e d only prove “ an a gre e m e nt to a c c om p lish a n ille g a l purpose .” Unite d State s v . J a c k s on , 167 F.3d 1280, 1285 (9th C ir. 1999). He re , e vide nc e tha t Sa la z ar a g re e d to sm

u ggle drugs is a

m ple : the na

rc otic s we re found in thec ar that 3Sa la z ar owne d, dire c tly unde r his se a t, a

nd he a ppe are d to be fe igning sle e p throughout the

e ntire stop (inc l uding a

t se c onda ry inspe c t ion), a

pra c tic e whic h the
a tte nding B orde r Pa trol a ge n t ide ntifie d a s ofte n use d to a void inspe c tion. Give n the s tre ngth of this e vide nc e , a ny e rror in a dm i tting thec e ll phone re c ords is the re fore ha

rm le ss. Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 52(a ). Sa la z ar sugge sts tha

t we follow theTe nth C irc uit’ s a pproa c h in Unite d State s v . Be nard, 680 F.3d 1206 (10th C i r. 2012). Unde r Be nard, ha

rm le ss e rror is
a pplie d to the que stion of “whe the r the re is a re a sona ble possibility

tha t the e rror c ontribute d to the ple a ,” whic h is a diffic ult ta s k be c a

use “ a de fe nda nt’ s de c ision to ple a d guilty

m ay be ba se d on a

ny fa c tor insideor outsidethe re c ord.” Id. a t 1213 (quoting Pe oplev . Grant , 380 N.E.2d 257, 264 (N.Y. 1978)) (inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d). W e have not a d opte d this a pproa c h in the c onditiona l ple a c o nte xt. Se e

, e .g., C e dano-Are llano , 332 F.3d a t 573-74 (a

pply ing ha

rm le s s e rror ana ly s is to a

n
a ppe lla nt's c onditiona l guilty

ple a whe n the e xiste nc e of othe r e vide nc e would not have c h an ge d the outc om e of a m otion to suppre ss); Unite d State s v . Dav is , 530 F.3d 1069, 1083-84 (9th C ir. 2008) (sa m e ). Eve n a c c e pting Sa la z ar’ s sugge stion, howe v e r, the re is little e v ide nc e to sugge s t tha t he m ight not ha

ve ple a de d guilty ha d the c e ll phone re c ords be e n suppre sse d. Suppre ssion of thec e ll phone re c ords 4wa s m e ntione d ne arly a s a n a fte rthought during the

suppre ssion he aring, a

nd nothing sugge sts tha

t the ir c onte nt (whic h re m a ins unknown) would ha ve pla y e d a signific ant role in the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se . Sa la z ar ra ise s a

num be r of a dditiona l argum e nts, none of whic h is pe rsua sive . The re fore , I would a ffirm
.

5