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 and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e H . R us s e l H ol l a nd, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge ** * f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on.

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. J E F F R E Y MI C HA E L WI L S ON , AK A J e f f W i l s on, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50648 D . C . N o. 2: 09 -c r- 00 07 8-F M C -1 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 o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F l or e nc e - M a r i e C oope r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r9, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f or e : P R E G E R S O N a nd C L I F T O N , C i r c ui tJ udge s , a nd H O L L A N D , S e ni or D i stri ctJudg e. *** 

# FI LED DE C 14 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

J e f f r e yM i c ha e l W i l s on ( “ W i l s on” ) e nt e r e d ac ondi t i ona l gui l typl e at o be i ng af e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm a n da m m u n itio n in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 922( g) ( 1) . O n appe a l , W i l s on c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n d en yi n g h i s req u estfo r an ev i d en t i ary h eari n g o n h i s m o t i o n t o su p p ress evi dence. “W e r e v ie w f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n a[ d is tr ic t] c o u rt’s d e c is io n w h e th e rto cond uctan evi dent i ary heari ng on a m ot i on t o sup pres s. ” U ni te d States v . Q uoc V i e t H oang , 486 F . 3d 1156, 1163 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U n ite d S ta tes v . H

o w e ll , 2 3 1 F .3 d6 1 5 , 6 2 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in r e f u s in g to hol d a n e vi de nt i a ryhe a r i ng be c aus e W i l s on f a i l e d t o i de nt i f

ya ny“ s i gni f

i c a nt d is p u te df

a c tu a l is s u e ” in h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . Se e H o w e ll , 2 3 1 F .3 da t 6 2 1 . E v en th o u g h th er e w as a f ac tu al d isp u te re g ar d in g th e s co p e o f O ff icerV eter e’s pat do w n, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c on cl ud ed thatthi s f ac tual di sput e w as im m a te r ia l. A s s u m in g th a t O f

f ic e rV e te r e ’s p a td o w n o f W ils o n e x c e e d e dits p e rm is s ib le s c ope , O f

f i c e rV e t e r e ’ s s ubs e que nta c tof l ooki ng i n the r e a rpa s s e nge rw i ndow w a s n o t “f

ru it o f th e p o is o n o u s tr e e ” b e c au s e th e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to ju s tif yth e s e a r c h o f

W ils o n ’s tru c kin d e p e n d e n t o f a n yin itia l ille g a lity . Se e W ong3

Su n v. U ni ted States , 37 1 U . S . 47 1, 48 7-88 (196 3); se e al so U ni ted States v. Mi l ler , 8 1 2 F .2 d1 2 0 6 , 1 2 0 8 - 0 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) . O f f ic e rV e te r e ’s s e a r c h o f

W ils o n ’s tru c kw a s c o n d u c te db a s e do n la w f u lly o b ta in e dp r o b ab le c au s e to b e lie v e th a t th e tru c kc o n ta in e de v id e n c e o f ac r im e . Id . a t 1 2 0 8 ( “H is to r ic a lly , in d iv id u a ls a lw a y s [ h av e ] b e e n o n n o tic e th a t m o v ab le ve s s e l s m a ybe s t oppe d a nd s e a r c he d on f a c t s gi vi ng r i s e t o pr obabl e c aus e tha tthe ve hi c l e c ont a i ns c ontr aba nd, w i thoutthe pr ot e c t i on a f f or de d byam a gi s tr a t e ’ s pr i or e va l ua t i on of

thos e f a c t s . ” ) . O f

f i c e rV e t e r e s e a r c he d W i l s on’ s c a rbe c aus e ( 1) W i l s on appe a r e d “ a gi t a t e d a nd ne rvous ” ; ( 2) W i l s on pr oduc e d no i de nt i f i c a t i on; (3 ) O ff icerV eter e lo o k ed th ro u g h th e r ea r p as se n g er ’s sid e w in d o w o f W il so n ’s tru c ka n ds a w in p la in v ie w th e b u tt e n do f w h a t h e b e lie v e dto b e ar if le , p a rtia lly c onc e a l e d byaT - s hi rta nd t ow e l ; a nd ( 4) w he n a s ke d, W i l s on a dm i tt e d t o ha vi ng a gun i n hi s truc k. N one of the s e f a c t s w e r e di s c ove r e d thr ough avi ol a t i on of W i l so n ’ s co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s. T o g eth er, th ese facts w ere su ffi ci en tt o est ab l i sh prob abl e c ause t o b el i eve thatW i l son’ s truck cont ai ned evi dence thatW i l son w as vi ol a t i ng C a l . P e na l C ode § 12025, w hi c h pr ohi bi t s c onc e a l i ng af i r e a rm w i thi n a v e h i c l e , a n dCa l . Pe n a l Co d e § 1 2 0 3 1 , w h i c h p r o h i b i t s “ c a rry i n g al o a d e df i r e a rm .

. . i n a vehi cl e[ . ] ” O ff

i ce r V et er e thu s had prob abl e c ause t o searc h W i l son’ s truck unde rthe aut om obi l e e xc e pt i on.4

T h e r e f o r e , w e a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f a n e v id e n tia ryh e a r in g . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on be c aus e W i l s on f a i l e d t o i de nt i f

ya ny “s ig n if ic a n t d is p u te df

a c tu a l is s u e ” in h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . AF F I RME D.