United States v. Don Michael Hudson

100 F.3d 1409 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DON MICHAEL HUDSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. No. 95-50359 United States Court of Appeals, NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted: May 8, 1996. Submission Withdrawn: May 13, 1996. Resubmitted: June 21, 1996. Filed: November 20, 1996. Dwight B. Moore, Santa Ana, California, for the defendant-appellant. Stephen G. Wolfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. CR-94-00102-GLT. Gary L. Taylor, District Judge, Presiding. Before: Reinhardt, Kozinski and Hawkins, Circuit Judges. MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge: 1 Defendant-appellant Don Michael Hudson entered a conditional guilty plea to charges of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Hudson appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his bedroom during his arrest and a contemporaneous search of the premises. Hudson advances three challenges on appeal. He argues that the…

dissenting:

The majority concludes that, under the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Whren v. United States, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996), the subjective motives of police officers “are not relevant where probable cause exists to support a particular police action.” The majority also interprets Whren to mean that searches and seizures supported by probable cause are not subject to a Fourth Amendment balancing analysis except under the “rare exception” of “searches and seizures performed in an extraordinary manner.” Having determined that Hudson’s arrest was supported by probable cause, and that the entry of Hudson’s home was not conducted in an “extraordinary manner,” the majority then concludes that the search and seizure were constitutional.

While the majority is correct in concluding that Whren constrains our decision in the present case to some extent, it inadvertently extends that decision considerably beyond its actual scope. As the Court acknowledged in Whren , reasonableness remains the touchstone of all Fourth. Amendment analysis. Here, given the nature of the police operation that occurred, we are required to examine closely all of the facts…

Defendant-appellant Don Michael Hudson entered a conditional guilty plea tp charges of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). Hudson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his bedroom during his arrest and a contemporaneous search of the premises. Hudson advances three challenges on appeal. He argues that the war-rantless search which produced the drugs and firearms underlying his conviction was undertaken pursuant to a pretextual arrest. He also contends that agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [“ATF”] violated the “knock and announce” requirement set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3109 , and that the ATF agents exceeded the scope of the search incident to arrest and the plain view search that produced the drugs and the firearms.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 1994, after receiving a tip from a confidential informant, the ATF commenced an investigation into possible federal narcotics and weapons violations by…