Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hai Ming MU, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heng Zhao, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-16
Citations: 104 F. App'x 674
Docket Number: Nos. 03-10375, 03-10396; D.C. No. CR-02-00977-1-PAC, CR-02-00977-JAT
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hai Ming MU, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Heng Zhao, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, KOZINSKI and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 674–674

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Hai Ming MU, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Heng Zhao, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 03-10375, 03-10396.
D.C. No. CR-02-00977-1-PAC, CR-02-00977-JAT.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2004.
Decided Aug. 16, 2004.
Steven Paul Logan, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Gilbert Eisenberg, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PREGERSON, KOZINSKI and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court erred in denying defendants' motion to suppress the evidence seized as the product of their unlawful continued detention. See United States v. Chavez-Valenzuela, 268 F.3d 719, 724r-25 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 279 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir.2002). Additionally, both defendants had standing to challenge the admission of the evidence as incident to the continued detention. See United States v. Twilley, 222 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000).
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.