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. TAM M I GLADYS C AM AC HO,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-50171

DC No. C R 16-769 JFW
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 John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 9, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s, a n d SIM O N , * * Distric t Judge
. As de fe n d ant Ta

m m i C am a c ho pa s se d through the se c urity c he c kpoint a

t Los Ange le s Inte rna tiona l Airport, thex-ray m a c hine a le rte d Tra

nsporta tion Se c urity Adm inistra

tion (“ TSA” ) offic e r Ela ine B e ne dic t tha t C am a c h o ha d a

n 

# FIL ED APR 02 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ore g o n, sitting by de signa tion.ove rsiz e d liquid, ge l, or a e rosol c onta ine r in he r ba g, prom pting a re quire d
se c o nda ry se arc h . During this se c o nda ry se arc h , B e ne dic t pic ke d up a n unse a le d, folde d e nve lope . B e n e dic t fe l t a ha rd m a ss insidethe e nve lope and thought it
m ight be som e thing ha

z ardous. To besure tha

t it wa s not suc h an ite m , B e ne dic t looke d inside the e nve lope for a

bout fifte e n se c onds a

nd found m

ultipleIDs a

nd
c re d it c ards with diffe re n t na m e s. C am a c h o wa s a

rre ste d for ide ntity

the ft-re late d
c rim e s. C am a c ho m ove d to suppre ss the e vide nc e from the e nve lope , arguing tha t B e ne dic t e x c e e de d the a

ppropria te sc ope of the a dm inistra tive se arc h. The distric t
c ourt re je c te d C am a c ho’ s re que st for a n e vide ntia

ry he aring on them otion to suppre ss a

nd de nie d the m otion. C am a c ho a ppe a ls both de c isions. W e a ffirm
. 1. C am a c ho first c onte nds tha t she wa s e ntitle d to a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring on he r m otion to suppre ss be c a use of: (1) c o ntra dic tions be twe e n B e ne dic t ’ s
a c c ount of these arc h a

nd the vide o re c ording of these arc h; a nd (2) c ontra dic tions be twe e n B e ne dic t’ s initia l sta te m e nts a bout the se arc h a

n d a late r-file d

de c la ra tion. Ne ithe r argum e nt c onvinc e s us tha t the distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re t ion in de c lining to hold a

n e vide n t ia

ry he aring. Se e Unite d State s v . Mc Tie rnan , 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th C ir. 2012).

2The distric t c ourt is re quire d “ to c o nduc t a n e vide ntia

ry he a ring whe n the
m oving pa

pe rs file d in c onne c tion with a pre -tria l suppre ssion m otion show tha t the re are c onte ste d issue s of fa c t re l a ting to the la wfulne ss of a

se arc h .” Unite d State s v . Me jia , 69 F.3d 309, 318 (9th C ir. 1995) (c iting Unite d State s v . W alc zak , 783 F.2d 852, 857 (9th C ir.1986)). C am a c ho did not e sta b lish a c onte ste d issue of fa c t . First, by

not ra ising theissue be low, C am a c ho wa ive d the argum e nt tha t the vide o re c ording c ontra dic t e d B e ne dic t’ s a c c ount of these arc h. Se e Unite d State s v . Murillo , 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th C ir. 2002) (c iting Unite d State s v . W right , 215 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th C ir. 2000)). R e ga rdle ss, the vide o is c onsiste nt with B e ne dic t’ s sta

te m e nts a bout the se arc h
. Se c ond, whileB e ne dic t’ s initia l sta te m e nts a bout the se arc h a

nd he r la te rfile d de c l aration a

re not ide n tic a l, the dispa

ritie s a re not c ontra dic tory . Spe c ific a lly , B e ne dic t first note d tha t she fe lt a

ha rd m a ss in thee nve lope and thought it c ould be “ som e thing ha z ardous.” Late r, in he r de c la ra tion she sta

te d tha t she thought the

ha rd m a ss m ay

have be e n

“ an initia tor for a n e xplosive ” or “ a knife .” The re fore , B e ne d ic t ’ s de c la ra tion sim ply provide d a

m ore spe c ific de sc ription of he r pre vious sta t e m e nt. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t the re wa s no issueof c onte ste d fa c t .

32. C am a c ho ne xt c onte nds tha t B e ne dic t e xc e e de d the sc o p e of a va lid
a irport sc re e ning se arc h by looking inside

the e nve l ope and re a ding the nam e s on the ID c a rds. B e ne dic t did not e xc e e d the pe rm issiblesc ope of a sc re e ning se arc h
and the distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing C a m a c ho’ s m otion to suppre ss.

“ [A] irport sc re e ning se arc he s, like the one a t issue he re , a re c onstitutiona

lly
re a s ona ble a dm inistra

tive se arc he s be c a

u se the y are ‘ c onduc te d a s pa

rt of a ge ne ra l
re gula tory sc he m e in furthe ranc e of a n a dm inistra

tive purpose , na

m e l y , to pre ve nt the c arry i ng of we a

p ons or e xplosive s a

boa rd a irc ra ft, a

nd the re by

to pre ve nt hija c kings.’ ” Unite d

State s v . Auk ai , 497 F.3d 955, 960 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Dav is , 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th C i r.1973)). To be
c onstitutiona

l, “ the individual sc re e ne r’ s a c tions [m ust] be no m ore intrusivetha n ne c e ssa ry to de te rm ine the e xiste nc e or a b se nc e of e xplosive s.” Unite d State s v . Mc C arty , 648 F.3d 820, 831 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting Unite d State s v . $124,570 U.S. C urre nc y , 873 F.2d 1240, 1245 (9th C ir. 1989)). He re , B e ne dic t’ s de c ision to look in the unse a le d e nve lope , a fte r fe e l ing a ha rd m a ss in it a

nd c onc luding tha

t it c ould c onta in som e thing ha z ardous, wa s not
m ore intrusive tha

n ne c e ssa ry . Se e id. a t 836 (“ [T] he sc ope of the pe rm issible
se arc h . . . [is] de fine d by

the point a

t whic h the sc re e ne r [is] c o nvinc e d the ba g pose [s] no thre a t

to a irline sa fe ty .” ). W e re j e c t C am a c ho’ s a sse rtion tha t TSA
4offic e rs a

re only a llowe d to se arc h for the spe c ific ite m that the x-ray m a c hine de te c te d in the first pla c e and m

ust ignoreothe r pote n tia l sa fe ty issue s. Like wise , B e ne dic t’ s a c tion of thum bing through the

c ards in the e nve lope
wa s not unre a sona

ble , e ve n though she re a d the nam e s on the m . First, haz ardous
m a te ria l s suc h a s bla de s or “ she e t e xplosive s” c ould be hidde n be twe e n the c ards. Se e id. Se c ond, whe re a s the TSA offic e r in Mc C arty c onc e de d tha

t she wa s no longe r se arc hing for sa fe ty ha z a rds whe n she re a d

the le tte rs at issue in tha

t c a se , se e i d. , B e ne dic t c onsiste ntly m a inta ine d tha

t she wa s se a

rc hing for sa fe t

y ha z ards. Notic i ng tha

t the ID c ards ha d diffe re nt na m e s is distinguisha

ble from re a ding le tte rs for the purpose of c olle c ting e vide nc e of ille g a lity
. 1

• ! • The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D
.

1 C am a c ho a lso c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t the vide o e vide nc e c o rrobora te d B e ne dic t’ s a c c ount of these arc h wa s c le arly e rrone ous. For the re a sons sta

te d a bove , C am a c ho wa ive d

this a rgum e nt. Ne ve rthe le s s, a fte r re vie wing the vide o, we disa g re e with C a m a c ho. The distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of the vide o wa s not c le a

r e rror. 5