Paul Donald Allen v. Ernie Roe, Warden Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California

Good Law
2002 Daily Journal DAR 11078·305 F.3d 1046·2002 WL 31108914·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9781·2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 20094
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 24, 200201-17010California2,203 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hawkins, J.

Paul Donald Allen (“Allen”) appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Allen challenges his California state conviction and thirty-two year sentence for first degree murder, using a firearm in the commission of the murder, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Allen contends that his post-arrest statements concerning the shooting, as well as the gun he used, were obtained in violation of Mi randa v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and therefore should have been suppressed. Because we conclude that the “public safety exception” of New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), applies to the facts of this case, we affirm the district court’s denial of Allen’s § 2254 petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On the night of September 9, 1990, Sacramento Police Officer Haynes responded to a report that a father had shot his son. Haynes arrived at the intersection of East Levee Road and Northgate Boulevard, and was met by Leon Danker, an eyewitness to the shooting. Danker informed Haynes that he heard gunshots, and later saw that the victim’s head was…

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.