N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DANIEL LAW RENC E M C C OY,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10443

D.C . No. 4:09-c r-00337-C W -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C la udia W ilke n, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd O’ C ONNELL, *** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla

nt Da nie l La wre nc e M c C oy

a ppe a ls the de c ision re voking his supe rvise d re le a se and re c om m itting him

to the c ustody

of the B ure a

u of Prisons. 

# FIL ED
NOV 21 2016 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble B e ve rly

R e id O’ C o nne l l, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a l ifornia , sitting by de signa tion.At M c C oy ’ s supe rvise d re le a s e re voc ation he a ring, thedistric t c ourt c onside re d the
na rc otic s , sy

ringe s, a n d c a sh se iz e d from

M c C oy ’ s pe rson during a polic e stop. The c ourt the n found tha

t he h a d viola

te d the c onditions of his supe rvise d re le a se
and subse que ntly

re turne d him

to the c ustody

of the B ure a

u of Prisons. M c C oy
a lle ge s tha

t the polic e stop c onstitute d a n e g re gious viola

tion of his Fourth Am e ndm e nt rights a

nd tha t the distric t c ourt should ha ve a pplie d the e xc lusiona

ry rule to suppre ss the e vide nc e se iz e d from his pe rson. Assuming, without de c iding, that the e gre g ious viola

tion doc trine a

pplie s to supe rvise d re le a se re voc ation proc e e dings, wehold tha

t the distric t c ourt did not err by de c lining to a

pply the
e xc lusiona

ry rule be c a u se M c C oy did not suffe r an e gre gious viola tion of his Fourth Am e ndm e n t

rights. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s de c ision. W e have he ld tha

t the e xc lusiona

ry rule m ay be a p plie d in c i vil de porta

tion proc e e dings to suppre ss e vide nc e a c quire d by m e ans of a

n " e gre g ious viola

t ion" of the Fourth Am e ndm e nt. M a rtine z -M e dina

v. Holde r, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033–34 (9th C ir. 2011). Assum

ing tha t a s im ila r rule a pplie s in the c onte xt of a

supe rvise d
re le a se re voc at ion proc e e ding, theque stion in this c a se is whe the r the na rc otic s, sy ringe s, a nd c a sh we re " obta ine d by [a ] de libe ra te viola

t ion[] of the [F] ourth [A] m e ndm e nt, or by

c onduc t a re a sona

ble offic e r should ha

ve known is in viola tion of theC onstitution." Id. at 1034 (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d).
2" Whe the r a

re a sona ble offic e r should ha

ve known his c onduc t viola te d the C onstitution de

pe n d s in pa

rt on whe the r the c o n stitutiona l right wa s c le arly
e sta blishe d in the pa

rtic ula r c onte xt a

t issue ." Id. If we find tha t the re wa s no
e gre gious Fourth Ame ndm e nt viola tion, we ne e d not de c ide whe the r a Fourth Am e ndm e nt viola

tion oc c urre d at a ll. Id. The offic e rs stoppe d M c C oy ba se d on the fa c t tha

t he m atc he d the de sc ription of a

pe rson of inte re st in a

hom ic ide tha

t ha d oc c urre d a

fe wda y s be fore . The de sc ription ha d be e n give n to Offic e r He m bre e in pe rson by

a tipste r. The tip inc lude d a

phy sic a l de sc ription, a

first na m e , a nd " a loc ation whe re th[e ] individual ha

ngs out or loite

rs." The tipste r de sc ribe d to Offic e r He m bre e a " bla c k
m a le , a p proxim ate ly

6 fe e t ta ll . . . with dre a dloc ks . . . a nd a sle nde r built [sic ] ." M c C oy c onte nds tha

t Offic e rs He m

bre e and Sousa

should ha

ve known tha

t it would viola

te the Fourth Am e ndm e nt to de ta in him ba se d on a n a nony m ous tip that c onta ine d " n o pre dic tive inform ation" and c onsiste d only of a " visua l ide n tific ation." W e disa gre e . The " a n ony m ous" tip wa s provide d to Offic e r He m bre e in pe rson, whic h supports its re lia bility . Unite d State s v. Pa los-M arque z , 591 F.3d 1272, 1275 (9th C ir. 2010). Thetip a lso c onta ine d pre dic tive inform at ion, in tha

t it inc lude d

" a loc ation whe re the [] individual ha ngs out or loite rs"

— the sa m e ge ne ra l loc ation whe re the offic e rs e nc ounte re d M c C oy . Give n
3the s e fa c t s, we c annot sa y that the offic e rs " s hould ha ve known" tha

t the y la c ke d
re a s ona ble suspic ion to de ta in M c C oy . 1 C f. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 271–72 (2000) (holding tha

t the re wa s no re a s ona

ble suspic ion ba se d on a

n a nony m ous te le phone tip de void of a

ny pre dic tive inform ation). AFFIRM E D.

1 Aga in, we do not de c i de whe the r the offic e rs a c tua lly ha d re a sona b le suspic ion to de ta in M c C oy . 4