USA V. JOSE RODRIGUEZ, No. 15-50328 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 16 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-50328 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. 2

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.