Court Opinion

ID: 9390780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 17:00:49.089117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.730323
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 28 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-50002

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                2:20-cr-00498-SB-AB-2
 v.

ROBERT EUGENE FOWLER,                           MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                 Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                      Argued and Submitted March 10, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, WATFORD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

      Robert Fowler appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to

suppress evidence of drug trafficking seized from his Toyota Camry. The district

court concluded that the good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment’s

exclusionary rule applied. Finding no error, we affirm.

      The good-faith exception provides an exemption from the exclusionary rule

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
when “an officer acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant

from a judge or magistrate and acted within its scope.” United States v. Leon, 468

U.S. 897, 920 (1984). The minimum requirements of the good-faith exception are

not met when a warrant is “based on an affidavit that is so lacking in indicia of

probable cause that official belief in its existence is entirely unreasonable.” United

States v. Fowlie, 24 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th Cir. 1994).

      Here, the affidavit made a colorable argument for probable cause, which the

agents relied on in good faith in securing a warrant to search Fowler’s car. The

statement of probable cause connected Fowler and his car to known drug

traffickers. It documented that law enforcement officers had observed Fowler

driving a known drug trafficker in his Camry to a nearby motel shortly after that

known trafficker had conducted a suspected drug sale. It also stated that, on one

occasion in which Fowler drove one known trafficker (Brian Bridges) to meet with

another trafficker (Christina Neff) who emerged from an apartment building,

Fowler himself first exited the car and approached the building in an apparent

effort to find Neff. Fowler then drove around the block in an apparent effort to

locate Neff, and after Neff approached the car and spoke to Bridges, Fowler drove

away “at a high rate of speed.” The statement of probable cause also cited relevant

information concerning those known drug traffickers that was gained from the Los

Angeles Police Department’s investigations into drug trafficking in the Wilshire

                                          2
and Hollywood areas and from Detective Braun’s experience and knowledge about

drug trafficking operations.

      These facts are, at a minimum, “sufficient to create disagreement among

thoughtful and competent judges as to the existence of probable cause.” Id.

(quoting United States v. Hove, 848 F.2d 137, 139 (9th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly,

the district court properly denied Fowler’s motion to suppress on the ground that

the good-faith exception applies here.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3