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. DANIEL LER OY PIC K,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-50012

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00695-DSF-1 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 Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 12, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON, IKUTA, a

nd B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s. Appe lla nt Da nie l Le roy

Pic k (Pic k), who e nte re d a c onditional guilty

ple a to c ha rge s a ssoc iat e d with m a il the ft, a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e . 

# FIL ED SEP 19 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.Pic k c onc e de d tha t the re wa s re a sona

ble suspic ion for the offic e rs to c onduc t a pat down se arc h of Pic k a nd his c o -de fe nda

nt, R obe rto Orte ga

(Orte ga ), following a 911 c a ll tha

t Pic k and Orte ga m ay

have be e n

e nga ge d in c rim ina l a c tivity . The distric t c o urt prope rly

de nie d Pic k’ s m otion to suppre s s e nve l ope s disc ove re d during thefrisk, be c a

use the e nve lope s we re found during a se arc h inc ide nt to arre st. Se e Unite d

State s v . J ohnson , 913 F.3d 793, 799 (9th C ir. 2019) (holding that “ proba ble c a use to a rre st m ust e xist a t the tim e of the se arc h, a

n d the arre st m ust follow during a

c ontinuous se que nc e of e v e nts. If the se c onditions a re satisfie d, the fa c t tha

t the arre st oc c urre d shortly a fte r the se arc h doe s not a ffe c t the se arc h’ s le g a lity .” ) (c i tations a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The offic e rs ha d proba ble c a u s e to a rre st Pic k for loite ring in viola t ion of C a l . Pe na l C ode § 647(h) 1 be c a

use : (1) a 911 c a lle r c onve y e d tha

t two individua

ls, m e e ting the de sc riptions of Pic k a

nd Orte g a , we re “ hiding in the sha dows” at a

n a pa rtm e nt c om ple xwhe re the re ha d b e e n re c e nt burgla rie s, a nd the individuals ha d a ske d to use the 911 c a lle r’ s c e llphone ; (2) the 911 c a lle r de sc ribe d the two individua ls’ be havior a s “ suspic ious” ; (3) the offic e rs e nc ounte re d Pic k a nd Orte g a at the ide n tifie d a

pa rtm e nt c om

ple x; (4) Orte ga

first sta te d tha t he live d at the a

pa rtm e nt

1 C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 647(h) de fine s loite ring a s “ t o de la y or linge r without a la wful purposefor be ing on theprope rty and for the purpose of c om m itting a c rim e a s opportunity

m ay be disc ove re d.” 2c om

ple x , the n tha

t a frie n d re side d the re , be fore a dm itting tha t he did not re side the re or ha

ve a frie nd who re side d the re ; (5) Pic k did not re fute any of Orte ga ’ s sta te m e nts c onc e rning the ir pre se n c e at the a pa rtm e nt c o m

p le x, a nd a lso a dm itte d that he did not live

the re ; a nd (6) the offic e rs we re fam ilia r with “ situa

tions whe re c rim ina ls a s k individuals if the y c an use the ir c e llphone s a s a ruse to c om

m i t robbe ry on the unsuspe c t ing individua ls.” S e e J ohnson , 913 F.3d a

t 800 (e xpla ining tha

t “ [s] o long a s the se a

rc h wa s inc ide nt to a

nd pre c e ding a

la wful arre st— w hic h is to sa

y tha t proba ble c a u se to a rre st e xiste d a

nd the se arc h

and arre st a re roughly

c o nte m p oran e ous—

the arre sting offic e r’ s subje c tive c rim e of arre st ne e d not ha

v e be e n the c rim e for whic h proba b le c a u se e xiste d” ) (c ita

tion om i tte d). For the first tim e on a

ppe a l, Pic k a sse rts tha

t , prior to a s king a

bout the nam e s a nd a ddre sse s on the e nve lope s, the offic e r wa s re quire d to a d vise Pic k of his Miranda 2 rights. Howe ve r, Pic k wa i ve d this a rgum e nt be c a

use he did not

“ ra ise [this] pa

rtic u la r ground in support of [his] m otion to suppre ss” in the distric t c ourt. Unite d S

t ate s v . Hawk i ns , 249 F.3d 867, 872 (9th C i r. 2001) (c ita tion om i tte d). AFFIRM E D.

2 Miranda v . Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3