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. M AUR IC E JOSEPH FREGIA,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 20-30158

DC No. 1:18-c r-0058-SPW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 4, 2021 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : TASHIM A , M . SM ITH, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. M a uric e Fre gia

a p pe a ls from

the judgm e nt e n te re d following his c o nvic tion,
a fte r tria l by jury , on thre e c ounts: (1) c onspira c y to posse ss with intent to distributem e tha

m phe tam ine , 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a )(1), 846; (2) posse ssion with inte nt to distribute

m e tha m phe t am ine , 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a )(1); and (3) posse ssion of



# F IL ED
NOV 2 2021 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.a

fire arm in furthe ranc e of a drug tra ffic king c rim e , 18 U.S.C . § 924(c )(1)(A)(i). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. R e vie wing de novo, Unite d State s v . K orte , 918 F.3d 750, 753 (9th C ir.), c e rt. de nie d , 140 S.C t. 264 (2019), wec onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt did not
e rr in de ny ing Fre g ia ’ s m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e . Fre g ia argue s tha

t the orde rs
a uthoriz i ng la

w e nforc e m e nt to install pe n re giste rs a nd tra p a nd tra c e de vic e s, a

nd to obta in his c e ll siteloc at ion inform ation (“ C SLI” ) we re inva lid be c a use the y did not c onta in “ ge ogra

phic lim its,” M ont. C ode Ann. § 46-4-403(2)(c ), and tha t the orde rs thus we re not “ issue d by a duly a uthoriz e d c ourt,” M ont. C ode Ann. § 46-5- 110(1)(a ). The orde rs, howe ve r, c o m plie d with there quire m e nts of theFourth Am e ndm e nt, whic h provide s tha t “ no W arran ts sha ll issue , but upon proba b le
c a use , supporte d by Oath or a ffirm ation, a nd pa rtic ula rly de sc ribing thepla c e to be
se arc he d, a

nd the pe rsons or things to be se iz e d.” U.S. C onst. a m e nd. IV. The distric t c o urt thus prope rly de nie d Fre gia ’ s m otion to suppre ss. Se e U nite d State

s
v . Hurd, 499 F.3d 963, 967– 68 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ B e c a use a ne utra l a

nd de ta c he d judge signe d the warran t , a nd be c a u se tha t wa rran t wa s supporte d by

a sworn
a ffidav it c le arly e s ta

blishing proba

ble c a u s e and de s c ribing with pa rtic u la rity the pla c e s to be se arc he d a

n d the ite m s to be se iz e d, it m e t a ll of the c o nstitutiona l
2re quire m e nts for a va lid se arc h wa

rrant.” ); Unite d

State s v . Miranda-Gue r e na , 445 F.3d 1233, 1237 (9th C ir. 2006) (in a fe de ra l prose c ution, there le va nt que stion wa s

“ not whe t he r the stop viola

t e d Ariz ona

la w,” but “ w he the r the stop viola te d the Fourth Am e ndm e n t ” ). W e note tha

t the prose c utors proc e e de d unde r the inc orre c t sta te sta tute to obta in Fre gia ’ s C SLI, re l y i ng on M onta n a C o de § 46-4-403, whic h a ddre sse s the insta lla tion of pe n re giste r and tra p a nd tra c e de vic e s. 1 The a c quisition of C SLI is
a ddre s se d by

§ 46-5-110, whic h sta

te s tha t “ a gove rnm e nt e ntity

m ay not obta in the l oc ation inform ation of a n e le c tronic de v ic e without a se arc h wa

rrant issue d by
a duly a uthoriz e d c o urt.” M ont. C ode Ann. § 46-5-110(1)(a). De spite the fa c t tha t the p rose c utors sought Fre gia ’ s C SLI unde r the inc o rre c t sta t ute , the orde rs we re supporte d by a ffidavits e sta blishing proba

ble c a use , a finding tha

t Fre gia doe s not

1 The prose c utors did re que s t a uthority to insta ll a

nd use “ p e n-tra

p de vic e s,” but the y

a lso sought Fre gia ’ s C SLI. 3dispute
. 2 B y e sta blishing proba

ble c a use , the orde rs c om

plie d with the
re quire m e nts of a se arc h wa rran t unde r M onta

na la w. Se e M ont. C ode Ann. § 46- 5-221(2). In a

ny e ve nt, a viola tion of sta te warrant proc e dure s doe s not by itse lf
re quire suppre ssion in fe de ra l c ourt. Se e Unite d State s v . C ormie r, 220 F.3d 1103, 1111 (9th C ir. 2000) (“ The ge n e ra l rule . . . is tha t e v ide nc e will only

be e xc lude d in fe de ra l c ourt whe n it viola te s fe de ra l prote c tions, suc h a s those c onta ine d in the Fourth Am e ndm e n t , a

nd not in c a se s whe re it is tainte d sole ly unde r sta te la w.” ). 2. Fre gia c o n te nds tha t the distric t c ourt a

b u se d its disc re t ion in de ny ing his re que st for ne w c ounse l without ma king a n inquiry into his alle gat ions. W e disa gre e . The distric t c ourt did not deny Fre gia ’ s m o tion to substitute c ounse l. Inste a d, the c ourt c onside re d the m o tion withdra wn ba se d on his c ounse l’ s
re pre se ntation tha

t Fre gia ha d c ha

nge d his m ind a

nd wa nte d to proc e e d to tria l. Fre gia the n proc e e de d to tria l with tha t c ounse l a

nd ne ve r ra ise d his e arlie r m otion until a fte r the tria l wa s ove r.

2 Eve n if the orde rs did not c om ply with sta te la w be c a use the y we re issue d unde r the inc orre c t sta tute , the good fa ith e x c e p tion to the e xc l usiona

ry rule a pplie s be c a

use the re is no e vide nc e tha t the offic e rs a c te d in ba d fa ith. Se e Unite d State s v . He nde rson , 906 F.3d 1109, 1119–20 (9th C ir. 2018) (e xpla ining tha t “ a p plic ation of thegood fa ith e xc e ption is perm itte d whe re a wa rrant is void be c a use of a m a gistra

te judge ’ s jurisdic tiona l viola tion, so long a s the e xe c uting offic e rs ha d a

n obje c tive l y

re a sona ble be lie f that

the warrant wa s va lid,” an d holding tha

t the good fa ith e xc e ption ba rre d suppre ssion of the e vide nc e be c a use the re wa s no e vide nc e offic e rs a c te d in ba d fa ith). 4Fre gia re l ie s on Sc he ll v . W

ite k, 218 F.3d 1017 (9th C ir. 2000) (e n ba nc ), but Sc he ll is distinguisha

b l e . In Sc he ll , the pe titione r pre se n te d e vide nc e tha t, be fore tria l , he a ske d his a

ttorne y a bout his pending m otion for substitute c ounse l. The
m otion ha d not be e n

rule d on, but his a

ttorne y told him tha t “ the m otion m

ust ha ve be e n de nie d be c a

use she wa s still his a

ttorne y .” Id. at 1021. Howe v e r, Sc he ll only

re m ande d for the ha

b e a s c ourt to hold a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring on whe the r any

c onflic t a m ounte d to ine ffe c tive a ssista n c e . Id . at

1027. Sc he ll sa i d tha t a n inquiry should ha

ve be e n m a de whe n a

m otion for substitute
c ounse l we nt una ddre sse d, id . at 1025, but it did not involve the situa tion he re , whe re a m otion for substitute

c ounse l wa s withdra

w n. 3 The judgm e nt of c onvic tion is AFFIRM E D. 4

3 Fre gia ’ s re lia

nc e on Unite d State

s v . Ve lazque

z , 855 F.3d 1021 (9th C ir. 2017), a lso is una

va iling. The re , the de fe nda nt “ c le a rly and c onsiste ntly ra ise d c onc e rns a

bout he r re pre se ntation,” but the c ourt de nie d the substitution m otion without inquiry
. Id. at 1035. Unlike in Ve l azque z , Fre gia did not ra ise the subje c t of his withdra

wn m otion a ga in until a fte r the ve rdic t wa s re nde re d. 4 W e de c line to a ddre ss Fre gia ’ s c l a im tha t his c ounse l re nde re d ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e . Se e Unite d State

s v . Liu , 731 F.3d 982, 995 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ As a ge ne ra l rule , we do not re vie w c ha lle nge s to the e ffe c tive ne ss of de fe nse c ounse l on dire c t a

ppe a l.” ). 5