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 AUL M E JIA,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-50132

D.C . No. 3:17-c r-00809-C AB -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 C athy Ann B e nc ive ngo, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2019 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, PAEZ, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s.

R a ul M e jia , a fe d e ra l prisone r, a

p pe a ls his c onvic t ion a s a fe lon in posse s sion of a

fire arm in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). During a n 

# FIL ED OCT 29 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.

* * 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).inve stiga

tion into a

burgla ry at a stora ge c e n te r, polic e se arc he d M e jia ’ s truc k a

nd found a fire arm hidde n be hind theglove c om pa rtm e nt. The distric t c ourt de c line d to suppre ss the fire arm

and de nie d M e

jia ’ s m otion for a Frank

s he a ring. W e re vie w the se rulings denovo. Unite d State s v . Adjani , 452 F.3d 1140, 1143 (9th C ir. 2006) (disc ussing thesta nda rd of re v ie w for suppre ssion m otions); U n ite d State s v . K le inman , 880 F.3d 1020, 1038 (9th C ir. 2017) (disc ussing thesta nda rd of re v ie w for Frank

s he aring m otions), c e rt. de nie d , 139 S. C t. 113 (2018). The distric t c o urt a lso ove rrule d his obje c tions to wha t he c ha ra c te riz e s a s “ e xpe rt te stim ony ” on the pa

rt of a polic e offic e r. This we re vie w unde r “ a c le ar a buse of disc re tion” sta

n da rd. U nite d State

s v . Gadson , 763 F.3d 1189, 1209 (9th C ir. 2014). Upon our re vie w, we a ffirm M e jia ’ s c o nvic tion.

1. While M e

j ia argue s on a

ppe a l tha t the se arc h wa

rrant for his truc k wa s inva lid, we find it unne c e ssa ry to a ddre ss this c la im . The a utom obile e xc e ption to the Fourth Am e ndm e nt’ s wa rrant re quire m e nt, a s a

rtic ulate d by C

arroll v . Unite d State s , 267 U.S. 132 (1925), pre c lude s m ost of M e j ia ’ s a rgum e nts. This e xc e ption ge ne ra lly pe rm its la

w e nforc e m e nt, a ssum i ng the y have proba ble c a use , to se arc h a ve hic le without a

wa rrant. C ollins v . Virginia , 138 S. C t. 1663, 1669 (2018). Furthe r, M e

jia doe s not dispute

tha t la w e n forc e m e n t ha d proba ble c a use to se arc h 2his truc k, a

rguing inste a d tha

t the re wa s not proba

ble c a use to se arc h be hind the glove c om

p artm e nt. B ut this is a

m e ritle ss c l a im . At m i nim um , the offic e r ha d proba b le c a use to be lie ve tha

t the proc e e d s of the burgla ry or re le va nt fina nc ia l re c o rds m ight be hidde n in the truc k, a nd suc h ite m s c ould c le arly be hidde n be hind a glove c om

p artm e nt.
Additionally , M e

jia ’ s c la im

tha t the Gove rnm e n t forfe ite d the a utom obile e xc e ption is me ritle ss. It “ is c la im s tha t a re de e m e d wa i ve d or forfe ite d, not argum e nts.” Unite d State s v . Pallare

s-Galan , 359 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th C i r. 2004). M ore o ve r, we have e xpre ssly de c line d to find forfe iture in this c onte xt. Unite d State s v . W illiams , 846 F.3d 303, 311–12 (9th C ir. 2016); se e also United Sate s v . Guzman–Padilla , 573 F.3d 865, 877 n.1 (9th C ir. 2009).

2. B e c a

use we hold tha

t the se a rc h of the truc k wa s justifie d by the a utom obile e xc e ption, it is unne c e ssa ry for us to a ddre ss M e

jia ’ s m otion for a Frank

s he aring. W e do note , howe ve r, tha t e ve n if we we re to re a c h this issue , we would a ffirm ba se d on the distric t

c ourt’ s re a soning: M e

jia ha s fa ile d to a

rtic ulate any m ate ria l sta te m e nt or om ission tha

t is m isle a ding.

33. Unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 701, a

la y witne ss’ s te stim ony

m u st be ra tiona lly ba se d on his or he r pe rc e ption, he l pful to de te rm ining a fa c t in issue , a

nd

“ not ba se d on sc ie ntific , te c hnic a l, or othe r spe c ia liz e d knowle dge within the sc ope of R ule 702.” To the e xte nt tha t the offic e r’ s te stim ony

we nt be y ond the bounds of R ule 701, we find tha

t M e j ia ha s fa ile d to show tha

t he wa s pre

judic e d by

suc h sta te m e nts. (A) The offic e r’ s te stim o ny a b out the c ondition of the

gun wa s a c c e p ta

ble , and wa s ba se d on his own re c olle c tion during the se arc h of the truc k. Tha

t he re fe rre d to lubric ant on thegun’ s slidedid not tra n sform him into a n e xpe rt witne s s. (B ) The offic e r’ s te stim ony a bout thenorm a l use of hollow point rounds as c om pa re d to full m e ta l ja c ke t rounds wa s a s a n e xpe rt. B e c a

u se it wa s ba se d, howe v e r lightly , on the offic e r’ s a bstra c t a nd spe c ia liz e d knowle dge , it wa s be y ond the s c ope of a

la y witne ss. Howe ve r, this e rror did not pre judic e M e jia . His c rim e wa s c om m i tte d whe n he posse sse d a fire arm while be i ng a fe lon, it doe s not m atte r whe the r he wa s using it for prac tic e or se lf-de fe nse .

4(C ) The offic e r’ s te stim ony a bout thea bout the pre va le nc e of finge rprints on re c e ntly -c le ane d fire a

rm s, a sta te m e nt to whic h M e

jia did not obje c t, wa s a s a

n e xpe rt. Eve n so, M e

jia c annot show pre

judic e from

this sta te m e nt. The sta

te m e nt is la rge ly intuitive ( i . e . , a

re c e ntly -c le ane d

fire a rm is not like ly

to ha ve finge rprints), a

nd m ore ove r, the tota l la c k of finge rprints would do little to he lp M e j ia ’ s a rgum e n t at tria l tha

t the gun did not be long to him .
M e jia ’ s c o nvic tion is there fore AFFIRM E D .

5