Rowland

United States v. Rowland

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 12, 200605-10375California4,669 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In October 2003, Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) agents in Guam received a telephone tip that Row- land was planning to smuggle methamphetamine hydrochlo- ride to Guam from Hawaii. The informant identified himself1 1 Although the gender of the informant is unknown, we refer to the informant as a male. 11294 UNITED STATES v. ROWLAND to the officers, provided Rowland’s name and his approximate height and weight, and remarked that Rowland was from Hawaii and was on probation. The informant told DEA Agent Jonathan Anderson that he had contacted the DEA to “bare his soul;” it is undisputed that the informant contacted the DEA voluntarily and was not motivated by a plea offer or other favorable treatment from authorities. After receiving the tip, Agent Anderson and Agent David Taitano contacted the Hawaii Probation Department. The Probation Department confirmed that Rowland was on probation in Hawaii, pro- vided Rowland’s date of birth and his physical location, and informed the agents of Rowland’s criminal history that included prior drug convictions.

About one week after receiving the tip, Agents Anderson and Taitano met…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.