Orman

United States v. Orman

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 21, 200706-10398California3,309 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

On August 20, 2004, at approximately 3:45 p.m., Orman and his wife entered the Paradise Valley Mall in Phoenix. An 1 The facts are taken from the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part Orman’s suppression motion. Officers Ferragamo, Tomasi, Larson and Bernal, mall director Hoskinson, a defense investigator, and Orman testified at the suppression hearing. The district court found the officers’ testimony more credible than Orman’s and resolved factual dis- putes in the government’s favor. UNITED STATES v. ORMAN 6013 employee of the local utility company, Arizona Public Service (“APS”), reported to mall personnel that he observed a man (later identified as Orman) place a handgun in his boot before entering the mall. The APS employee described the man as white, wearing a white tank top, and covered with tattoos. He reported that the man entered the southwest area of the mall near Starbucks.

Mall security director Donald Hoskinson received this information by radio, and contacted Officer John Ferragamo of the Phoenix Police Department, who was working at the mall as an off-duty police officer. With the help of…

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.