Court Opinion

ID: 153052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-14 00:02:28+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:30.536251
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               AUG 13 2010

                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-50646

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01292-CAS-1

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
CHARLEY WILLIAM ELLISON, JR.,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted August 2, 2010
                               Pasadena, California

Before:       KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, Circuit Judge and
              WHYTE, District Judge.**

       Because an informant who gave accurate information in the past may be

presumed trustworthy, even with the informant’s criminal history included, the

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
       **
             The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, Senior United States District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
                                                                                page 2
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 (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 (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.