Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-16
Citations: 695 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 15-50328
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50328
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted August 7, 2017 Pasadena, California
Filed August 16, 2017
L. Ashley Aull, Michael Anthony Brown, Kimberly Denise Jaimez, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
Georgina Wakefield, Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDGA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the driver of the car in which Rodriguez was riding of breaking the law, and they therefore had a "reasonable suspicion" sufficient to lawfully stop the vehicle. See Cal. Vehicle Code § 5200, 4456(c), 11715; see also Helen v. N. Carolina, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 530, 536, 190 L.Ed.2d 475 (2014). The officers lawfully asked Rodriguez to step out of the car for the duration of the stop. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110-111 & n.6, 98 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977). Rodriguez dropped drugs as he exited. When the officers found the drugs, they had probable cause to arrest him, and the subsequent search of the car in which he had been a passenger was lawful. See United States v. Pinela-Hernandez, 262 F.3d 974, 977-79 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court properly denied Rodriguez's motion to suppress the evidence found in the car and the statements he made after his arrest. See id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.