Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian Ricardo CHACON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-19
Citations: 392 F. App'x 575
Docket Number: No. 09-10393
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian Ricardo CHACON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 392
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julian Ricardo CHACON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10393.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 14, 2010.
Filed Aug. 19, 2010.
Jeffrey T. Tao, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard F. Boulware, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Julian Ricardo Chacon appeals the denial of a motion to suppress evidence in his criminal trial in federal district court. We affirm the district court.
Applying de novo review, we agree with the district court that the reasonable suspicion underlying the investigatory stop had not dissipated at the time Chacon gave consent to the search of his vehicle. As a result, the fact that Chacon was in custody at the time he gave consent did not taint his consent. Although reasonable suspicion may have begun to dissipate regarding the possibility of a kidnap-in-progress, the highly unusual circumstances and odd explanations known to the police at the time of consent did not eliminate reasonable suspicion that some "criminal activity may be afoot." United States v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.2007) (internal quotations omitted); see also United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir.2007).
The district court did not commit clear error in finding Chacon's consent to be voluntary. Several factors in the totality of the circumstances analysis support the district court's conclusion. See United States v. Patayan Soriano, 361 F.3d 494, 501-04 (9th Cir.2004).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.