United States v. Wahchumwah, No. 11-30101 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his jury conviction for offenses relating to the sale of eagle parts. He contended that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when an undercover agent used a concealed audio-video device to record an illegal transaction defendant conducted in his home. The court rejected this argument because the Fourth Amendment's protection did not extend to information that a person voluntarily exposed to a government agent, including an undercover agent. The court also rejected defendant's Confrontation Clause challenge, and his objection to the admission of certain photographs of eagles and other bird parts at his trial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The court reversed, however, defendant's conviction on Counts 2 or 3 and Counts 4 or 5 because those were multiplicitous.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part a criminal judgment in a case in which a jury convicted the defendant of offenses relating to the sale of eagle parts. The panel held that an undercover agent’s warrantless use of a concealed audio-video device in a home into which he has been invited by a suspect does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The panel held that Count 2 charging the defendant with offering to sell Golden Eagle tails, in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Count 3 charging the defendant with the subsequent sale of a Golden Eagle tail, in violation of the Lacey Act, are multiplicitous because the offer to sell is a lesser included offense. The panel held that Count 4 charging the defendant with offering to sell a pair of eagle plumes from a collection of plumes and Count 5 charging him with the subsequent sale of a pair of plumes, both premised on a violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, are likewise multiplicitous. The panel rejected the defendant’s objection to the admission of certain photographs of eagles and other bird parts under Fed. R. Evid. 403. The panel held that the district court did not err under the Confrontation Clause by permitting officers to testify to receiving complaints from unnamed tribal members that the defendant was selling eagle parts, when the complaints were offered not to prove that the defendant was selling eagle parts, but merely to explain why federal agents began investigating him.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 4, 2013.
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.