United States v. Torres, No. 14-10210 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant plead guilty to unlawful possession in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and then appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a handgun that was found during an inventory search in the air filter compartment of a vehicle occupied by defendant. The court concluded that the LVMPD officers’ decision to impound the vehicle was permissible under the Fourth Amendment because it was consistent with LVMPD policy and served legitimate caretaking purposes. The court also concluded that the inventory search of the vehicle did not violate the Fourth Amendment; in fulfilling his duty to search all containers, the officer acted within the parameters of LVMPD policy when he unlatched the air filter compartment; and therefore the district court properly denied defendant's motion to exclude evidence of the firearm. Furthermore, there was no violation of defendant's due process when the district court's order accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied defendant's motion to suppress. Finally, the court assumed without deciding that Johnson v. United States's holding nullifies USSG 4B1.2(a)(2)'s identically worded residual clause. Therefore, the court accepted the government's concession that the district court sentenced defendant to a provision that is unconstitutionally vague. This renders defendant's sentence illegal, and thus the waiver of his plea agreement does not bar this appeal. Because the government agrees that defendant's prior convictions do not justify the imposition of USSG 2K2.1(a)(2)’s crime-of-violence enhancement absent the residual clause, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence of a handgun found during an inventory search in the air filter compartment of a vehicle operated by the defendant, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. The panel held that Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officers’ decision to impound the vehicle was permissible under the Fourth Amendment because it was consistent with LVMPD policy and served legitimate caretaking purposes: to promote other vehicles’ convenient ingress and egress to a parking area, and to safeguard the car from vandalism or theft. The panel held that the district court’s conclusion that an officer’s search of the air filter compartment was authorized by LVMPD policy is not clearly erroneous. The panel held that the LVMPD inventory search policy appears to have been reasonably “designed to produce an inventory,” and ensures sufficient uniformity to protect the owners and occupants of impounded vehicles from the risk that officers will exercise discretion in performing an inventory search only when they suspect they will uncover the fruits of criminal activity. The panel held that in fulfilling his duty to search “all containers,” the officer acted within the parameters of LVMPD policy when he unlatched the air filter UNITED STATES V. TORRES 3 compartment, and that the inventory search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The panel rejected the defendant’s due process challenge to the district court’s order adopting and accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the motion to suppress be denied. Based on the government’s concession, the panel assumed without deciding that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague, nullifies the identically worded residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). The panel therefore accepted the government’s concession that the district court sentenced the defendant to a provision in the Sentencing Guidelines that is unconstitutionally vague, which renders the sentence “illegal” such that the defendant’s waiver in his plea agreement does not bar this appeal. Because the government agrees that the defendant’s prior convictions do not justify imposition of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2)’s crime-of-violence enhancement absent the residual clause, the panel vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
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.