NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. ISAIAH SMALLWOOD JACKSON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 50301
D.C. No. 3:18

- cr - 01805

- BAS

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 8, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, CALLAHAN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. At 9:00 p.m . on September 21, 2017, officers knocked on the door to Isaiah Smallwood Jackson’s home and when, in response, he stepped out of his home, they arrested him. The officers had probable cause to believe t hat Jackson had sexually exploited a minor. Jackson was subsequently convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor. On appeal , he argues that his confession and evidence

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

JUN 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

from his cell phone should have been suppressed and that the government failed to
prov e the interstate commerce element of the charge. We affirm.

“ We review de novo the district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress and review the underlying factual findings for clear error. ” United States v. Evans , 786 F.3d 779, 784 ( 9 th Cir. 2015). J ackson is correct that , pursuant to United States v.
Lundin , 817 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2016), the officers were not authorized to knock
on his door without a warrant with the intent to arrest him. However, the Supreme Court has held that “ where the police h ave probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the [the government’s] use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an
arrest made in the home in violation of [ Payton v. N ew Yor k, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) ]. ” New York v. Harris , 495 U.S. 14, 21 (1990) ; s ee also Hudson v. Michigan , 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (holding that a violation of the knock

- and

announce rule does not necessarily require the suppression of all evidence found in the search)

. On appeal, Jackson does not contest that at the police station he
waived his Miranda rights and admitted that he m et the victim and engaged in a
sexual ac t

. Even where the government has not raised harmlessness we may consider
whether an error is harmless. United State s v. Gonzalez

- Flores , 418 F.3d 1093,
1100

- 01 (9th Cir. 2005). We held “that sua sponte recognitio n of an error’s3

harmlessness is appropriate only where the harmlessness of the error is not reasonably debatable.” Id . at 1101. Here, excluding the evidence from the search of Jackson’s cell phone , the re remained overwhelming evidence of Jackson’s guilt. The jury heard the victim’s testimony, evidence from the victim’s cell phone , testimony f ro m the officers involved in the case, and Jackson’s confession. T he victim testified to t he acts for
which Jackson was co nvicted , and Jackson admitted those acts. Both the victim
and Jackson stated that , before the assault, they had communicated only by cell phone, using an Internet app. Thus, it is beyond debate that the admission of materials from Jackson’s cell phone was harmless error. Jackson’s challenges to the evidence and jury instructions concerning the interstate commerce element of the charges are not persuasive , as we have held that the Internet is an instrument of, and intimately related to , interstate commerce. United States v. Sutcliffe , 505 F.3d 944, 952

– 53 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v.
Costanzo , 956 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 2020) , cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 931 (2020)

. AFFIRMED.