USA V. KALI LAULEA, No. 14-10555 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 14-10555 D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00824-ACK-1 v. MEMORANDUM* KALI LOTOAIKI LAULEA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Alan C. Kay, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and CALLAHAN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Kali Lotoaiki Laulea appeals his conviction of two counts of distribution of five grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(B), and one count of distribution of fifty grams or more of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and (b)(1)(A). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here. We review the district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress de novo and the district court’s factual findings for clear error. United States v. Kahre, 737 F.3d 554, 564 (9th Cir. 2013). The district court did not err in denying Laulea’s motion to suppress the evidence seized after the traffic stop and arrest. The officer testified that on the day of the traffic stop, he attended a joint operational briefing where he was shown Laulea’s photograph and was informed that Laulea lacked a valid driver’s license. Approximately one hour later, the officer observed the same person he had seen in the photograph driving a vehicle previously associated with Laulea. Given the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that Laulea was driving without a valid license in violation of Haw.Rev.Stat. § 286-102. See United States v. Miranda-Guerena, 445 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 2006). Thus, the stop of Laulea’s vehicle was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Willis, 431 F.3d 709, 715 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005). AFFIRMED.
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.
