Court Opinion

ID: 9905981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 18:01:06.001871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:02.820947
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 30 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-50252

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                2:22-cr-00078-JFW-1
 v.

JUAN MANUEL GUTIERREZ, AKA                      MEMORANDUM*
Takeloko,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

                    Argued and Submitted November 16, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, HURWITZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Concurrence by Judge HURWITZ.

      Juan Gutierrez appeals from his conviction and sentence for possession of a

machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1). He asserts that the evidence

underlying this conviction was the product of an unlawful seizure and search. “We

review the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress de novo and the

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
underlying factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Zapien, 861 F.3d 971,

974 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (alteration omitted). As the parties are familiar

with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.

      1. The officers’ stop of Gutierrez did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Gutierrez alleges that the stop began “when the officers activated their forward-

facing lights and siren to detain him” because they believed he was violating

California Vehicle Code § 21956(a). He argues that the officers lacked reasonable

suspicion to support the stop “as of that moment” because they could not

reasonably have believed he was violating California traffic law. Assuming but

not deciding that the stop began at that moment, and that the officers could not

reasonably have suspected a traffic violation, immediately intervening

circumstances “purged” any “taint” arising from the initial stop, United States v.

Garcia, 516 F.2d 318, 319 (9th Cir. 1975) (citation omitted), and provided

“independent reasonable suspicion” to “prolong” it, United States v. Evans, 786

F.3d 779, 788–89 (9th Cir. 2015).

      Almost immediately after the officers activated their lights and siren, the

officers observed a package of fireworks, and Gutierrez’s companion attempted to

flee. The district court found that Gutierrez admitted that he was there to buy

fireworks from his companion and indicated that the other package of fireworks—a

different type of fireworks from those possessed by his companion—belonged to

                                          2
him. Gutierrez has not proven that the district court’s findings to this effect were

clearly erroneous.

      The flight of Gutierrez’s companion was “voluntary conduct” that was

“probative of criminal activity.” Garcia, 516 F.2d at 319–20 (citation omitted).

Moreover, possession of fireworks violates Long Beach Municipal Code

§ 18.48.01, and the sale of fireworks violates California Health and Safety Code

§ 12676. Therefore, the totality of the circumstances presented independent

reasonable suspicion that Gutierrez was committing a crime.

      2. The warrantless search of Gutierrez’s truck also did not violate the Fourth

Amendment because the officers had probable cause to search Gutierrez’s truck for

fireworks. See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925). Gutierrez told

the officers that the truck belonged to him, that he was there to buy fireworks from

his companion, and that the other fireworks at the scene were his. These

circumstances provided probable cause for the officers to believe Gutierrez was in

possession of fireworks and might have more in his truck.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3
                                                                      FILED
United States v. Gutierrez, No. 22-50252                              NOV 30 2023
                                                                  MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
HURWITZ, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result:                   U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

      I agree with the majority that Guetierrez’s conviction should be affirmed but

arrive at that conclusion by a somewhat different route than my colleagues.

      In my view, the seizure of Gutierrez occurred after he complied with the

officer’s command to place his hands on the hood of the police car. See California

v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991) (stating that a seizure “requires either

physical force” or “submission to the assertion of authority”). There was no physical

force in this case, and the videos from the officers’ body cameras demonstrate that

Gutierrez “did not submit in any realistic sense” to a show of authority before that

point. United States v. Smith, 633 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2011). Rather, he was on

the phone and looking down as the police car pulled up and responded “huh” as an

officer approached him and first instructed him to place his hands on the hood.

      Before the officers seized Gutierrez, they saw illegal fireworks and open

containers of alcohol in plain view in the alley, and Gutierrez’s companion fled. This

provided at least reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, allowing the

officers to detain Gutierrez and inquire further. Gutierrez then promptly volunteered

that the illegal fireworks were his. This admission provided probable cause to search

his car. See United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2010).