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. URB ANO GONZALEZ-M AR TIN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-10095

D.C . No. 3:18-c r-00076-R C J-C B C -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 Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 17, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEM E LLE, *** Distric t Judge
. Urbano Gonz a le z -M artin a ppe a ls his c onvic tion following a c onditiona l guilty ple a . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we re ve rse . 

# FIL ED

APR 29 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 c a se ha s be e n subm itte d on the brie fs a s of April 17, 2020, pursua nt to FR AP 34(a ).

* * * The Honora

ble Ivan L.R . Le m e lle , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion.Although the polic e offic e rs la wfully e nte re d the e ntry way of M orfin’ s
re side nc e to a ddre ss he r m e dic a l e m e rge nc y , se e Brigham C i ty v . Stuart , 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006), no broa

de r se arc h

wa s justifie d by

the e m e rge nc y a id e xc e ption to the Fourth Am e ndm e nt wa rra nt re quire m e nt; the offic e rs c ould provideM orfin with a ny ne c e ssa

ry m e dic a l a s sista

nc e while re m a ining in the e n try way . Nor wa s a broa de r se arc h justifie d by the prote c t ive swe e p e x c e ption to the wa rra nt
re quire m e nt, be c a

use the gove rnm e nt fa ile d to ide n tify

any “ a rtic ula ble fa c ts whic h, ta ke n toge t he r with the ra tiona l infe re nc e s from those fa c ts, would wa

rra nt
a re a sona bly prude nt offic e r in be lie ving” tha t a ny othe r pa

rt of M orfin’ s re s ide nc e

“ ha rbor[e d] an individual posing a da nge r to those on the arre st sc e ne .” Mary land
v . Buie , 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990). Eve n though, a s the gove rnm e nt a rgue s, the offic e rs ha d no wa

y to rule out tha

t som e one e lse wa s inside the house , the Supre m e C ourt ha s re

je c t e d e xc e ptions to the

wa rra nt re quire m e nt ba se d on “ the da nge r that inhe re s” in e nc ounte rs with c rim i na ls or viole nt c rim e s; rathe r, offic e rs
m ust ha ve “ re a sona

b le , individualiz e d suspic ion.” Id. a t 334 n.2. The re fore , ne ithe r the polic e offic e rs’ e ntry into theliving room

of the re s ide nc e (from

whe re
an offic e r c ould se e a

pistol on a

ta ble in the kitc he n), nor the se arc h of othe r room s in the house and the ga

ra ge , wa s e x c e pte d

from the wa rra nt re quire m e nt.

2B e c a

use the polic e o b ta ine d the fire a rm s e v ide nc e in viola

tion of theFourth Am e ndm e nt, it is inadm issibleunde r the e xc lusiona ry rule
. Se e Mapp v . Ohio , 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961). B y the sa m e toke n, Gonz a le z -M artin’ s re sponse s to polic e que stioning a

bout the fire arm s we re ina dm issibleunde r the e xc lusiona ry rule a s fruit of the poisonous tre e . W ong Sun v . Unite d State

s , 371 U.S. 471, 487–88 (1963). Exc i sing this ta

inte d e v ide nc e from

the a ffidavit pre se nte d

to the
m a gistra te judge , the re wa s insuffic ie n t e vide nc e to support a proba b le c a use de te rm i nation for the subse que nt se arc h wa rra nt for M orfin’ s re side nc e . Unite d State s v . N ora , 765 F.3d 1049, 1058 (9th C ir. 2014). Fina lly , the gove rnm e nt’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the fire arm

e vide nc e is a dm issible be c a use the polic e ine vita

b ly would ha v e disc ove re d e vide nc e tha t Gonz a l e z M artin unla

wfully posse sse d fire arm s, s e e N i x v . W illiams , 467 U.S. 431, 449–50 (1984), fa ils. The gove rnm e nt doe s not provide a pla usible e xpla

nation a s to why M orfin’ s c ry

ptic sta te m e nt a bout “ a ll the guns inside

of the house ” and the inform a t ion tha

t Gonz a le z -M artin ha d live d in the house until thre e we e ks e arlie r would ha ve le d the polic e offic e rs to c onduc t a c rim i na l c he c k

on Gonz a le z M artin. W ithout tha

t c he c k, the re would be no “p roba bility or substa n tia l c ha nc e ” that e vide nc e of a

c rim e wa s inside the hom e . Distric t of C o lumbia v

. W

e sby , 138 S. C t. 577, 586 (2018) (quoting Illinois v . Gate s , 462 U.S. 213, 243 n.13 (1983)).
3Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt e rre d in not e xc luding e vide nc e of fire arm s

found within the

hom e . B e c a

use we re v e rse the de nia l of Gonz a le z -M artin’ s
m otion to suppre ss a

nd va c ate his guilty

ple a , we do not re a c h his othe r argum e nts. The judgm e nt is RE V E RSE D , the ple a is VACAT E D , a

nd this m a tte r is RE M A NDE D for furthe r proc e e dings.

4