United States v. Peter Wong
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Peter Wong appeals his conviction of three counts of theft concerning a federally funded program in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666 (a)(1)(A). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we reject his arguments and affirm.
First, the warrant alleged sufficient facts establishing probable cause to search Wong’s home. See United States v. Angulo-Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir.1986) (judges are “entitled to draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept, based on the nature of the evidence and the type of offense”); United States v. Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir.2002) (issuing judges may rely on an officer’s training and experience). Moreover, under United States v. Leon, this was not a warrant “so lacking in indicia of probable cause” that it was unreasonable for officers to rely on the judge’s probable cause determination. 468 U.S. 897, 923 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Luong, 470 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir.2006) (holding no suppression because the affidavit established “at least a colorable argument for probable cause”).