United States v. Iwai, No. 18-10015 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized after law enforcement agents entered into defendant's condo without a warrant. The agents secured a court order authorizing insertion of a tracking device to conduct the controlled delivery, but their entry into defendant's condo to secure the package was warrantless.
The panel held that the record supported the district court's decision that the agents' warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances, defendant's subsequent consent for a more thorough search was not therefore tainted by an illegal entry, and the district court did not err by denying the motion to suppress.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying a motion to suppress evidence seized following law enforcement agents’ warrantless entry into defendant’s condominium. The agents secured a court order authorizing insertion of a tracking device to conduct a controlled delivery of a package of methamphetamine, but their subsequent entry into defendant’s residence to secure the package was warrantless. The panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that the agents’ entry was presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment but, considering the totality of the circumstances, exigent circumstances existed to justify the entry because it was reasonable to conclude that the destruction of incriminating evidence was occurring. Defendant’s subsequent consent for a more thorough search was not therefore tainted by an illegal entry, and the district court did not err by denying his motion to suppress. Dissenting, Judge Bybee wrote that the search and seizure was unreasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the officers should have obtained an anticipatory warrant; the officers should have sought a warrant once defendant returned to his apartment with the package; and the officers lacked facts supporting exigent
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 4, 2020.
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.