United States v. Tomas Chavez-Miranda

Caution
2002 Daily Journal DAR 11373·306 F.3d 973·2002 WL 31157676·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9996·2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 20666
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 30, 200201-50615California3,723 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tallman, J.

We must determine if the trial court correctly denied defendant-appellant Tomas Chavez-Miranda’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of his apartment during a narcotics investigation. The district court took evidence at a two-day suppression hearing and held that (1) there was probable cause in support of the search warrant; (2) a Franks hearing was not warranted; and (3) forcible entry after 20 to 30 seconds did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (the “Knock and Announce Rule”). Chavez-Miranda conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribution of heroin under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 , 846, so he could appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

I

We examine the sufficiency of the evidence to establish probable cause for a search warrant issued for Chavez-Miranda’s apartment after an extensive narcotics trafficking investigation. On February 29, 2000, agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) established surveillance at the Santa Ana, California, home of co-defendant Jose Magana (the “Camille Residence”), where a confidential source (the “informant”)…

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.