United States v. Dario Dicesare, United States of America v. Kathleen Flannery, United States of America v. Jose Marin

DiCesare and Flannery appeal their convictions entered after conditional guilty pleas under rule 11(a)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P. Marin appeals his conviction after a jury trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm DiCesare’s conviction, but vacate Flannery’s conviction and remand for an evidentiary hearing. We vacate Marin’s conviction and remand for a new trial.

I

In January 1983, the government began investigating DiCesare after he and his wife insisted on depositing large amounts of cash in the First Los Angeles bank without filing the currency transaction reports required by 31 C.F.R. §§ 103.22 , 103.25 (1984). On July 25, 1983, Glendale police seized approximately 33 pounds of cocaine at a hotel room in Glendale. DiCesare arrived at the hotel room and provided inconsistent explanations of his presence to the police. He was arrested, but later released.

A team of law enforcement officers from the United States Customs Service, and the Los Angeles and Glendale police departments began a surveillance of DiCesare. During late August, this surveillance revealed meetings and rendezvous between DiCesare and codefendant Marin under secretive and suspicious…

concurring:

I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately, however, to address an issue that the majority has chosen not to consider. The majority says that whether dogs may be brought unwanted and uninvited into people’s homes by law enforcement authorities in an effort to discover evidence is irrelevant in this case. In my opinion the issue is not irrelevant for two reasons. First, the case could as easily be decided on the ground that the Constitution prohibits this unprecedented and outrageous violation of individual rights as on the more convoluted fourth amendment ground the majority chooses to rely on. Second, since the Los Angeles Police Department apparently believes it is free to use dogs to search people’s homes, the United States Attorney agrees, and an actual case and controversy is now before us, we are, in my opinion, obligated to let our government officials know that they are absolutely wrong. If we fail to do so we encourage them to continue to violate people’s fundamental rights and permit them to continue to profess ignorance of the true meaning of the Constitution.

My very able and respected colleague, Judge Wallace, writing for the majority,…

765 F.2d 890 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dario DICESARE, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kathleen FLANNERY, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose MARIN, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 84-5013, 84-5021 and 84-5056. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Feb. 8, 1985. Decided July 10, 1985. Christine W.S. Byrd, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Stanley I. Greenberg, Los Angeles, Cal., Manuel Araujo, Santa Ana, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. WALLACE, Circuit Judge: 1 DiCesare and Flannery appeal their convictions entered after conditional guilty pleas under rule 11(a)(2), Fed.R.Crim.P. Marin appeals his conviction after a jury trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We affirm DiCesare's conviction, but vacate Flannery's conviction and remand for an evidentiary hearing. We vacate Marin's conviction and remand for a new trial. 2 * In January 1983, the government began investigating DiCesare after he and…