United States v. Ronald W v. Ho

943 F.2d 56 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald W.V. HO, Defendant-Appellant. No. 90-10500. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 14, 1991. Decided Sept. 13, 1991. Before: JAMES R. BROWNING, FARRIS and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 We affirm Ho's convictions on four counts of drug related offenses and his sentence. 3 Ho asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence taken from his car and electronic organizer. Ho's first argument is that the DEA agents did not have probable cause to arrest. "There is probable cause for a warrantless arrest ... if, under the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the arresting officer, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the suspect had committed a crime." United States v. Gonzales, 749 F.2d 1329, 1337 (9th Cir.1984). Although " 'a person's mere…