Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan HIDALGO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-15
Citations: 588 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: No. 13-30235
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan HIDALGO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 588
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan HIDALGO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30235.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2014.
Filed Dec. 15, 2014.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Steven Toshio Masada, Sarah Y. Vo-gel, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David B. Bukey, Law Offices of David B. Bukey, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Juan Hidalgo-Mendoza ("Hidalgo") challenges his conviction on four counts of drug and gun-related charges, arguing that the search warrant enabling police to discover drugs hidden inside the walls of his former residence was not supported by probable cause. We affirm.
The showing required to justify issuing a search warrant is "whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before [the magistrate judge], . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). A magistrate judge's '"determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts.' " Id. at 236, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969)).
Given the deferential standard of review and quantum of proof required, there was no error in authorizing the search of Hi-dalgo's former residence and allowing the introduction of the discovered drugs into evidence. The murder of Hidalgo's roommate, the discovery of guns and narcotics in the immediate vicinity, and Hidalgo's admitted role in assisting with the distribution of narcotics all indicated that the residence was being used in connection with a narcotics enterprise.
In the weeks after Hidalgo's arrest, two separate sources told the police that a significant quantity of additional narcotics remained hidden inside the walls of Hidal-go's former residence. A third source corroborated this information. While some sources provided more direct information than others, and only some of the sources had firsthand knowledge of the hidden narcotics, the totality of the circumstances presented to the magistrate judge indicated far more than a "fair probability" that contraband would be found in Hidalgo's former residence.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.