USA V. JORGE RIOS-LOPEZ, No. 12-30278 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 19 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 12-30278 D.C. No. 2:11 cr-6017 RMP v. MEMORANDUM* JORGE ARMANDO RIOS-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 8, 2013** Seattle, Washington Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Defendant Jorge Armando Rios-Lopez appeals the district court s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a residence and from * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). the GPS-tracking of his cellular telephone. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. The magistrate judge s probable cause determination that it was reasonable to seek evidence and contraband in the residence was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Gourde, 440 F.3d 1065, 1069 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc); United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004). Several indicia of reliability supported the informant s hearsay testimony cited in Detective Stohel s affidavit. See United States v. Rowland, 464 F.3d 899, 907-08 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1397 (9th Cir. 1986). The affidavit also tied Defendant to the residence and to narcotics sales there. See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1254 (9th Cir. 2004). Because the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, the district court properly denied Defendant s suppression motion. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 39 (1983). 2. Even assuming, without deciding, that the officers GPS-tracking of Defendant s cellular telephone constituted a search, and that the warrant authorizing this search issued without probable cause, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule still applies. Agent Stanley s affidavit established a colorable argument for probable cause, and the officers reliance on the warrant -2- was objectively reasonable. United States v. Crews, 502 F.3d 1130, 1136 (9th Cir. 2007). Suppression is therefore inappropriate. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). AFFIRMED. -3-

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.