US v. Jamie Noel Ayala Arriaza, No. 09-4957 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4957 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAIME NOEL AYALA ARRIAZA, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00190-TSE-1) Submitted: September 2, 2010 Decided: November 24, 2010 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Todd Richman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Research and Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Karen L. Dunn, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jaime Noel Ayala Arriaza appeals his conviction and seven-month sentence after entering a conditional guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of possession of a firearm and 18 U.S.C. ammunition ยงยง by 922(g)(5), an illegal 924(a)(2) alien, in (2006). violation Arriaza s of sole argument on appeal is that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the fruits of a warrantless police search on his impounded vehicle because he alleges that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement did not justify the search post-Arizona v. Gant, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009). Because we disagree, we affirm the district court s judgment. In reviewing the district court s denial of Arriaza s suppression motion, we review the district court s factual determinations for clear error and any legal determinations de novo. United States v. Kelly, 592 F.3d 586, 589 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3374 (2010). Because the district court denied Arriaza s motion, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Id. The Fourth Amendment guarantees [t]he right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures . . requires that . . U.S. searches be Const. amend. conducted 2 IV. This pursuant to guarantee a warrant issued by an independent judicial Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390 (1985). officer. a Kelly, 592 F.3d at Under this exception, police may search a vehicle without warrant if probable cause exists to believe it contraband and the vehicle is readily mobile. v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938, 940 (1996). met, v. An established exception to this rule is the automobile exception. 589. California police thorough as may a conduct a could Pennsylvania If both conditions are warrantless magistrate contains search authorize in that a is as warrant[.] United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 800 (1982). We circumstances conclude known that to the police totality were of the sufficient facts to and support a reasonable belief that Arriaza s vehicle contained a firearm. Moreover, automobile a car is exception readily so long mobile as it for is purposes being used of the on the highways or is readily capable of such use rather than, say, elevated on blocks. 471 U.S. at Kelley, 592 F.3d at 591 (quoting Carney, 392-93). So long as a vehicle is clearly operational[,] we have found the vehicle to be readily mobile for purposes of determining whether a warrantless search of that vehicle was constitutional. F.3d 231, justification 238 to (4th See United States v. Brookins, 345 Cir. conduct a 2003). warrantless Accordingly, search [t]he under the automobile exception does not disappear merely because the car 3 has been immobilized Gastiaburo, 16 and F.3d impounded. 582, 586 (4th See Cir. United States v. 1994) (upholding warrantless search of a car impounded by the police for thirtyeight days). Despite the foregoing, Arriaza asserts that, like the search-incident-to-arrest exception automobile the exception untethered from to its at warrant original issue in requirement reasoning Gant, [t]he has become and has unconstitutionally expanded beyond its proper scope. been In Gant, the Supreme Court determined that a search of a vehicle incident to a recent arrestee is occupant s unsecured arrest and is justified within reaching only distance when the of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle. Gant, 129 S. Ct. at 1719 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The that a Supreme broader Court nonetheless application of the explicitly mentioned search-incident-to-arrest exception was unnecessary to protect law enforcement safety and evidentiary interests because [o]ther established exceptions to the warrant additional demand. requirement circumstances authorize when safety a or vehicle search evidentiary under concerns Id. at 1721 (recognizing, for instance, that [i]f there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence 4 of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820821[ ] (1982), authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found ). does not undermine this court s Thus, we hold that Gant jurisprudence warrantless searches of impounded vehicles. pertaining to Cf. United States v. Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 154 n.8 (4th Cir. 2009) (declining to apply Gant s reasoning to protective searches where suspect had not yet been arrested). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court s judgment. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.