United States v. Garay, No. 18-50054 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the district court did not err by denying his motion to suppress evidence found as a result of the search of his cell phone, seized from his rental car after a high-speed chase. In this case, the phone contained photos tying him to the firearm that was recovered from the car.
As a preliminary matter, the panel held, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518, 1530 (2018), that it did not need to address the issue of whether defendant lacked standing to challenge the search before addressing defendant's Fourth Amendment claims, because such an inquiry was not jurisdictional. The panel held that the searches of both the car and the phone were lawful, because the phone was seized as part of a valid inventory search; probable cause supported the two warrants issued to search the phone; and there was a sufficient factual basis for the issuing magistrate judges to conclude, independently of the affiants' beliefs, that evidence might be found on defendant's cell phone.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm in a case in which the district court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found as a result of the search of his cell phone, seized from his rental car after a high-speed chase. Under Byrd v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018), which clarified that Fourth Amendment standing is not jurisdictional, the panel did not need to reach the government’s threshold contention that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of the phone before analyzing the merits of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment claims. The panel held that the district court did not err in concluding that the defendant’s cell phone was lawfully seized as part of a valid inventory search, where there was no reason to conclude that the search was used to rummage for evidence. The panel noted that administrative errors should not, on their own, invalidate inventory searches. The panel held that the district court correctly determined that probable cause supported the two warrants issued to search the defendant’s cell phone. The panel explained that affiants seeking a warrant may state conclusions based on training and experience without having to detail that UNITED STATES V. GARAY 3 experience. The panel concluded that there was a sufficient factual basis for the issuing magistrate judges to conclude, independently of the affiants’ beliefs, that evidence might be found on the defendant’s cell phone.
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.