United States v. Mario Espinoza

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-10459

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00448-JAM-1

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MARIO RAYMOND ESPINOZA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 1, 2010** San Francisco, California

Before: NOONAN, PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges.

The United States appeals the district court’s order granting defendant

Espinoza’s motion to suppress evidence. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3731, and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively

unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Payton v. New York, 445

U.S. 573, 586…

MEMORANDUM **

The United States appeals the district court’s order granting defendant Espinoza’s motion to suppress evidence. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 , and we affirm.

Warrantless searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). Under the emergency exception, however, “law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 , 126 S.Ct. 1943 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006). Here, the government argues that the warrantless entry into Espinoza’s home was justified under the emergency exception because the police had a reasonable belief that there might be an injured person or another shooter lurking inside Espinoza’s home.

The government’s argument is not supported by the record. At the time of the entry into Espinoza’s house, Espinoza was in custody and detained in the back of a police car. Neighbors had reported that Espinoza lived alone, and no one reported seeing or hearing anyone…

dissenting:

In Michigan v. Fisher, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 546 , 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009), police responded to “a complaint of a disturbance” at a named address. On arrival they found damaged fence posts on .the property and three broken windows in the home with the glass on the ground outside. Blood was on the hood of the truck, on clothes within it, and on one of the doors to the house. The police saw Fisher inside, standing, screaming and throwing things. Reversing the decision of the state court, the United States Supreme Court held that these facts constituted sufficient objective evidence of an emergency to justify the warrantless entry of Fisher’s home.

Dissenting, Justice Stevens noted the trial court’s finding “the police decision to leave the scene and not return for several hours — without resolving any potential dangerous situation and without calling for medical assistance — inconsistent with a reasonable belief that Fisher was in need of immediate aid.” Id. at 550 .

The police had no objective evidence that anyone was in the house except Fisher. The police had no objective evidence that Fisher had injured himself seriously enough to need assistance. What they had was…