Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charley William ELLISON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-13
Citations: 392 F. App'x 547
Docket Number: No. 09-50646
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charley William ELLISON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, Circuit Judge and WHYTE, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 392
Pages: 547–548

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charley William ELLISON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50646.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 2, 2010.
Filed Aug. 13, 2010.
Amber D. Garza, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Elizabeth Newman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, Circuit Judge and WHYTE, District Judge.
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Because an informant who gave accurate information in the past may be presumed trustworthy, even with the informant's criminal history included, the affidavit would have supported a finding of probable cause. United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1396-97 (9th Cir.1986). Thus, the district court- did not err in denying Ellison's motion to suppress physical evidence and motion for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). See United States v. Reeves, 210 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Meling, 47 F.3d 1546, 1554-56 (9th Cir.1995).
Ellison's statement "should I have a lawyer," even considered in light of his stated desire to avoid self-incrimination, was not an unequivocal request for counsel. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 461-62, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); United States v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1186-88 (9th Cir.2005). The district court did not err in.denying Ellison's motion to suppress statements made after his arrest.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.