T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. GA BE DRAPEL , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10391 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 -cr-0 0 0 0 7 -K JD -R JJ1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da K e ntJ . D a w s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2010

S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , T A L L M A N an d R A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A p p ellan t-D ef

en d an t G ab e D ra p el (D ra p el) c h allen g es th e d istrict co u rt’s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s . D r ape l s pe c i f i c a l l y c ont e nds tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e rr e d in its f a c tu a l f in d in g th a t th e p o lic e d id n o t ille g a lly se ar ch hi s r ent ed st orage s pace pri or t o o bt ai ni ng a w arra nt , and thatthe di stri ct 

# FI LED MA R 04 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

courtfa i l ed t o con du cta de no vo r e vi e w of the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e por ta nd r e c om m e nda t i on. U nde rthe c l e a r l y e rr one ous s t a nda r d, a n appe l l a t e c our t“ m us tr e ve r s e i f the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te rm in a tio n is illo g ic a l o rim p lau s ib le o rla c k s s u p p o r t in i nfer ence s thatm aybe draw n from the fa ct s i n the re cord. ” U ni ted Stat es v. Hi nk s on , 585 F . 3d 1247, 1261 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( e n ba nc ) ( c i t a t i ons , e m pha s i s a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . A tthe he a r i ng on the m ot i on t o s uppr e s s , the det ec t i ves gave confl i ct i ng t es t i m on y r egar di ng the t i m e D rapel w as encoun t er ed i m m edi at el y pre ce di ng hi s a rr es t . T he di stri ctcourtadop t ed the t i m el i ne that f or e c l os e d D r ape l ’ s c ont e nt i on tha tthe pol i c e s e a r c he d hi s uni tpr i ort o obt a i ni ng a w arra nt . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s c ho i ce betw ee n tw o p erm i ss i bl e vi ew s of the evi dence c a n n o t b e c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . See U n ite d S ta te s v . G a r c ia , 1 3 5 F .3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 1 ( 9 th C i r. 19 98 ). P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C . § 6 3 6 , ad i s tr i c tc o u r ti s r e q u i r e d t o r e v i e w a M ag i strat e Ju d g e’ s R ep o rtan d R eco m m en d at i o n s de no vo . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 63 6(b)(1)(C). In thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourti nd i ca t ed thati t“ ha[d] cond uct ed a de no vo r e vi e w of

the r e c or d” a nd f

ound “ tha tthe R e por ta nd R e c om m e nda t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s M a gi s tr a t e J udge e nt e r e d M a y 18, 2007, s houl d be a dopt e d a nd a f f i rm e d. ” T hi s s t a t e m e nti s s uf f i c i e ntt o “ s a t i s f[ y ] the de novo r e vi e w s t a nda r d of3

28 U . S . C . § 6 36 . ” N

. A m . W a tc h C o r p . v . P r in c e s s E rm in e J e w e ls , 786 F . 2d 1447, 14 50 (9th C i r. 19 86 ). AF F I RME D.