USA V. JASON CATHCART, No. 18-30163 (9th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 5 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-30163 D.C. No. 1:16-cr-02044-SAB-1 v. JASON WILLIAM CATHCART, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 26, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. The United States appeals the district court’s grant of Jason Cathcart’s motion to suppress evidence of child pornography found pursuant to a search warrant. The district court concluded the warrant was not supported by probable cause and the good faith exception did not apply. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. § 1291, and we reverse. We need not reach the question of probable cause in this case. Even if the warrant lacked probable cause, the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule applies. United States v. Elmore, 917 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is especially likely to be applicable “when an officer acting with objective good faith has obtained a search warrant from a judge or magistrate and acted within its scope” (quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920 (1984))). The affidavit supporting the warrant at issue here contained more evidence than the bare inference present in United States v. Needham, 718 F.3d 1190, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2013). Because a reasonable law enforcement officer acting in good faith could conclude there was probable cause to search Cathcart’s devices, we reverse the district court’s order granting Cathcart’s motion to suppress. REVERSED. 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.