United States V. Ramirez, No. 22-50045 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case revolves around Victor Ramirez, who was pulled over by police officers for traffic violations. Recognizing Ramirez as a gang member from a previous encounter, one of the officers asked him about his parole status. Ramirez confirmed he was on parole for a firearm-related offense. During the stop, the officers discovered a loaded firearm in Ramirez's car. Ramirez was subsequently indicted for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon.
Ramirez moved to suppress the gun and ammunition, arguing that the officers unreasonably prolonged the stop by asking about his parole status, which he claimed was unrelated to the traffic stop. The district court denied Ramirez's motion to suppress, and Ramirez pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon, reserving his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that asking about parole status during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment as it reasonably relates to the officer's safety and imposes a negligible burden. The court also remanded the case in part so that the district court could correct the written judgment to conform it to the oral pronouncement of sentence.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress in a case which the defendant contended that a police officer impinges on the Fourth Amendment by asking about parole status during a traffic stop.
The defendant argued that asking about parole status gives the police license to search a parolee—who typically agrees to future searches as a condition of his release—for general criminal activity unrelated to the traffic stop. The panel held that asking about parole status during a traffic stop does not offend the Fourth Amendment because the question reasonably relates to the officer’s safety and imposes a negligible burden.
The panel remanded in part so that the district court can, as the government agrees, correct the written judgment to conform it to the oral pronouncement of sentence.
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.