United States v. Jose Rodriguez

15-50328·Judge: Reinhardt, Kozinski, Christen·Attorney: L. Ashley Aull, Michael Anthony Brown, Kimberly Denise Jaimez, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee, Georgina Wakefield, Jonathan D. Libby, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, FPDGA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Los Angeles), Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant0 citations

Opinions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50328

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00590-CAS-1 v.

JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, MEMORANDUM*

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 7, 2017 Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT, KOZINSKI, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

The officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the driver

of the car in which Rodriguez was riding of breaking the law, and they therefore

had a “reasonable suspicion” sufficient to lawfully stop the vehicle. See Cal.

Vehicle Code §§ 5200, 4456(c), 11715; see also Heien v. N. Carolina, 135 S. Ct.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 530, 536 (2014). The officers lawfully asked Rodriguez to step out of the car for

the duration of the stop. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110–111 &

n.6 (1977). Rodriguez dropped drugs as he exited. When the officers found the

drugs, they had probable cause to arrest him, and the subsequent search of the car

in which he had been a passenger was lawful. See United States v.

Pinela–Hernandez, 262 F.3d 974, 977–79 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court

properly denied Rodriguez’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the car and

the statements he made after his arrest. See id.

AFFIRMED.