UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 20, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ARTHUR DELVALLE, ET AL., #6 WILFRED GARCIA, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Manuel Real United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT WILFRED GARCIA'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM SEARCH OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES; OFFICIAL FINDINGS THERETO
Having heard from plaintiff, the United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, and defendant Wilfred Garcia, by and through his counsel of record, Jason Gonzalez, at a hearing held before this Court on March 19, 2012, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Court has read and considered defendant Wilfred Garcia's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Unlawful Search of Cell Phones (Docket #374, the "Motion"), the government's opposition to the Motion, and defendant's reply thereto.
2. On March 19, 2012, this Court held a hearing on the Motion. Defendant appeared in person with his counsel of record, as well as those co-defendants and their respective counsel who joined in the Motion. After hearing argument from the parties, the Court denied defendant's Motion.
3. With respect to the co-defendants who joined in the Motion, a person must have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or item to be searched to have standing to challenge a search by law enforcement. United States v. Parks, 285 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the co-defendants who filed joinders did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the cellular telephones possessed by defendant Garcia at the time of his November 18, 2009 arrest.
4. A warrantless search of a California parolee who is subject to search conditions is permissible. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 121 (2001). Here, defendant was on active California parole at the time of his arrest and was subject to search conditions. The declaration by Detective Wolfe establishes that Detective Wolfe was aware of defendant's status at the time the search was performed. As a result, no warrant was necessary to search the telephones defendant possessed.
THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Wilfred Garcia's Motion to suppress evidence obtained by search warrant is denied. In addition, the co-defendants who filed joinders lack standing to challenge the search and their joinders are stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Presented by: /s/ JUSTIN R. RHOADES Assistant United States Attorney
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.