United States v. Bobby Der Enslin, AKA Bobby De Enslin, Bobby Enslin D

Good Law
2003 D.A.R. 406·2003 Daily Journal DAR 406·315 F.3d 1205·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 319·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 392
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 13, 200302-50087California4,516 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

Bobby Der Enslin appeals his criminal conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends that the district court wrongfully denied his motion to suppress evidence from a warrantless search and evidence obtained after he was seized unlawfully. He further contends that the indictment was fatally flawed because it failed to allege a mens rea for his felon status. We affirm because we conclude that (1) even if the person who voluntarily consented to the search did not have authority to consent, the U.S. marshals appropriately relied upon her apparent authority; (2) the seizure imposed a de minimis obligation upon Enslin to show his hands while the marshals searched the room; and (3) United States v. Millet , is controlling authority in this circuit, and it appropriately rejected any mens rea requirement for the felon status element of the felon in possession statute.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Enslin was truly in the wrong place at the wrong time. Seven U.S. marshals were searching for a fugitive named Mickey Bass to execute an arrest warrant. Relying upon a tip that Bass had frequented John and Shannon Palacios’ house,' they approached the house…

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.