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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. W AYNE D. M C DUFFIE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30245

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-00102-R HW -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt H. W

ha le y , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

9, 2013 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a n d WALTER , Se nior Distric t Judge . ** 1. M c Duffie argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rrone o usly de nie d his m otion to suppre ss e vide n c e disc o ve re d a fte r he wa s a rre ste d pursua nt to a n inva l id a rre st warran t. He argue s tha

t the arre st wa

rrant wa s inva lid, be c a

use the a ffida

vit upon 

# FIL ED JUL 15 2013 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Dona ld E. W a lte r, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de s igna tion.whic h the wa rrant wa s issue d did not support the m a gistra te ’ s finding of proba

ble c a use . He re , the distric t c ourt c o nc lude d tha t the a ffidavit supporte d the m a gistra te ’ s finding of proba

b le c a u se to a rre st M c Duffie for posse s sion of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e in viola

tion of R .C .W . § 69.50.4013. W e will a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s c o n c lusion so long a s a n inde pe nde nt re vie w of the a ffidavit e sta blishe s a “ s ubsta ntia l ba sis” for the m a gistra te ’ s finding of proba

ble c a use . Unite d State s v . C astillo , 866 F.2d 1071, 1076-77 (9th C ir. 1988). Unde r R .C . W . § 69.50.4013, “ posse ssion” c a

n be e s ta blishe d by

e ithe r a c tua l or c onstruc tive posse ssion. S e e State v . Stale y , 872 P.2d 502, 504-05 (Wa sh. 1994). An individua

l ha s c onstruc tive posse ssion if heha s “ dom inion a nd c ontrol ove r the ite m .” State v . J one s , 45 P.3d 1062, 1064 (Wa sh. 2002). Dom inion a nd c ontrol doe s not ha

v e to be e xc lusive and c an be e sta blishe d by

c irc um sta

ntia l e vide nc e . Se e State

v . W e iss , 438 P.2d 610, 612-13 (Wa s h. 1968). The a ffidavit in this c a se provide d the m a gistra t e with a substa ntia l ba sis for finding proba

ble c a use tha t M c Duffie c onstruc t ive ly posse sse d

c oc a ine . The a ffidav it e sta

blishe d tha

t (1) offic e rs we nt to 1219 North Ash, Apa rtm e nt No. 4 to look for M c Duffie ; (2) M c Duffie answe re d the door whe n offic e rs knoc ke d; (3) M c D uffie re que ste d tha

t offic e rs c om e insideso ne ighbors would not se e the

-2-polic e ; (4) offic e rs de te c te d the sm e ll of m arijua na in the a pa rtm e nt; (5) M c Duffie gave offic e rs c onse nt to se arc h the re side nc e ; (6) during these arc h, offic e rs found suspe c te d c ra c k c oc a ine on top of a te le vision in the

ba c k be droom ne xt to a

drug sc a l e ; a nd (7) a portion of the

substa n c e fie ld te ste d positive

for c oc a i ne . This e vide nc e provide s a

substa ntia l ba sis for them a g istra te ’ s finding of proba

ble c a use that M c Duffie c o nstruc tive ly posse sse d the c oc a ine . Se e Mary land v . Pringle , 540 U.S. 366, 372 (2003). 2. M c Duffie a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by de ny ing his motion to dismiss his indict

m e nt on theground of outrage ous gove rnm e nt c onduc t. M c D uffie ’ s the ory

is tha t De te c tive B arrington e nga ge d in outra ge ous c onduc t whe n he pla

nte d c oc a ine re sidue on the sc a l e found in thea pa rtm e nt on Ash Stre e t. Whe the r the gove rnm e nt’ s c onduc t is so outrage ous tha t it viola te s a de fe nda n t’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt due proc e ss rights is revie we d de novo. Se e Unite d State s v . Gurolla , 333 F.3d 944, 950 (9th C ir. 2003). Additiona lly , “ [w] e vie w the e vide nc e in the light mo st fa vora ble to the gove rnm e nt a

nd we a c c e pt the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings unle ss the y are c le arly e rrone ous.” Id .

-3-Unde r this sta nda rd of re vie w, we a ffirm . 1 The distric t c ourt spe c ific a lly found tha t De te c tive B arrington did not pla nt c oc a ine on the sc a le . M c Duffie ha s not shown tha

t this fa c tua l finding wa s c le arly e rrone ous. Inste a d, he offe rs only what he c onc e de s to be c irc um s ta ntia l e vide nc e to re fute the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion. Howev e r, a c c e pting thedistric t c ourt’ s finding of fa c t an d vie wing the e vide nc e in the light mo st fa vora ble to the gove rnm e nt, we c annot c onc l ude tha t the g ove rnm e nt’ s c onduc t wa s outra ge ous. AFFIRM E D.

1 It is not c le ar from M c Duffie ’ s brie fing whe the r he argue s tha t the distric t c ourt should ha

ve dism isse d the indic tm e nt for outra ge ous gove rnm e nt c onduc t (a ) be c a use the gove rnm e nt’ s c onduc t viola te d due proc e s s; or (b) pursua nt to its “ inhe re n t supe rvisory

powe rs,” an inde pe nde nt sourc e of the c ourt’ s a uthority to dism iss a n indic t m e nt for suc h c onduc t. Se e Unite d State s v . Barre ra-More no , 951 F.2d 1089, 1091 (9th C ir. 1991). B e low, the distric t c ourt only an a ly z e d whe the r the g ove rnm e nt’ s c onduc t viola te d due proc e ss; it did not c onside r whe the r it should e xe rc ise its supe rvisory powe rs to dismiss theindic tm e nt. B e c a use the distric t c o urt only

a ddre sse d the due proc e ss issue , a nd M c Duffie doe s not c la im the d istric t c o urt e rre d by so c onfining its a

na ly sis, we will only

a ddre ss his due proc e s s a rgum e nt. -4-