Court Opinion

ID: 9877522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:06:43.678927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:24.279852
License: Public Domain

PAEZ, J.,
concurring:
I agree with the majority in full. I write separately only to clarify that I would reverse the denial of the motion to suppress, in accordance with Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) and our decision in United States v. Camou, 773 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2014), if not for United States v. Cook, 808 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2015). On similar facts as here, the court in Cook concluded that the dual purposes of the search-incident-to-arrest doctrine were sufficiently served to uphold the search. Although, in light of Gant and Camón, I would not have con-eluded the same, I view Cook as controlling here.